4 ms·

We just got our 8yo son a Nintendo Labo kit to go with his Switch. I was skeptical about it, because anything with VR or AI or ML in the promotional material ha

by japhyr 7y ago

We just got our 8yo son a Nintendo Labo kit to go with his Switch. I was skeptical about it, because anything with VR or AI or ML in the promotional material has the potential to be mostly hype. But I was amazed watching him build and use the kits. If you're not familiar with it, the Labo is a series of cardboard devices that you build, which hold your switch and controllers and turn them into a VR setup. For example, you build a blaster and play a VR game where you shoot aliens from a few different virtual worlds. Or you build a bird with wings that flap, and then you fly around with other birds looking for eggs to hatch. Along with that, you build a foot pedal that makes you fly faster, which also fans you so you feel more air rushing by your face as you fly faster. The first time I tried it, I spent about 5 minutes shooting at aliens all around me. I was laughing and jumping when the boss alien leaped into the air and came down over my head. When I took the headset away from my face, I was amazed to find myself back in my own house. It's amazing to me that people at Nintendo built a VR kit around a device that, as far as I know, was never intended to be a VR device. It's been really satisfying watching our son build his own setups, rather than just using a manufactured plastic device. He's having so much fun with it, and he's learning so much from it as well. He sees what the screen looks like in VR mode when it's out of the VR kit, which has led to interesting conversations around concepts like raytracing. If you're not ready to jump into an Oculus setup and you already have a switch around, I highly recommend trying out one of the Labo kits.

shafyy 7y ago
While the Labo is great, we should avoid describing it as VR. The same is true for Google Cardboard. The experience in a "true" VR headset that offers 6 DoF and hands, such as the Oculus Quest, is just something completely different.
- kkarakk 7y ago
  It's functionally VR and is most current gen folk's/kids first experience with VR. There is no point gatekeeping it Unless you think ~20 million headset VR users is somehow a large number of people in a world saturated with smartphones
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    >It's functionally VR and is most current gen folk's/kids first experience with VR. There is no point gatekeeping it A Zoetrope is technically a moving picture, but it's a fundamentally different category of thing to a real movie. Sticking your smartphone in a glorified ViewMaster is a cool gimmick, but it's a pretty disappointing experience after the very brief novelty has worn off. If we don't very clearly delineate "real VR" (6DoF, low latency, hand presence), we risk poisoning the well for the whole industry.
- japhyr 7y ago
  What would you call it? It feels completely different than any game I've played before. Your comment makes me look forward to trying an Oculus when I have a chance.
  - whywhywhywhy 7y ago
    It's still VR but I think the gap between a "Google Cardboard"-like experience and real VR is huge. The 3D effect of VR is cool but the real magic is using controllers in true 3D space, the Oculus ones are really well designed and just sort of fade away and feel like your hands.
    - shafyy 7y ago
      Exactly. Obviously, it's still VR. However, because the gap between say an Oculus Quest and a Google Cardboard is so massive, calling both VR without further specifying is not very sensible to me. It's almost like a completely different technology, the only similarity being that optical lenses are used between the screen and the user's eyes.
    - saberdancer 7y ago
      3DOF vs 6DOF could mean less depending on the experience you try out. If you try out a well designed 3DOF experience that can work quite well, especially as the same experience in 6DOF won't be drastically different. But when you try out a good 6DOF experience WITH hand/controller tracking, that is a game changer. Being able to pick up things and interact with them in a natural way, this makes it real for me.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    The gap between a 6DOF headset and a 3DOF headset is almost as much as the gap between a 3DOF headset and simple stereoscopic images. The 3DOF viewers are whimsical but a good full motion VR experience can actually click you into full immersion. The kind of immersion where you might accidentally lean on a table or wall that doesn't exist.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I could make the same argument that lack of eye tracking, native speech inference, better locomotion strategies, and higher resolution mean that today's cutting-edge VR headsets will be subject to the same misplaced scrutiny that you're currently giving the cheap, commoditized headsets. It's still Virtual Reality.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    Not really. It’s subjective, but full head and hand tracking is a radically different experience then all sub-options, and the things you mention do not seem to be as radical an improvement in comparison.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      The things I mentioned are critical for increased rendering efficiency and full immersion. One day they will be deemed as essential to the experience, and people will lament current tech as not VR.
      - gfodor 7y ago
        Agree to disagree. I think that 10 years from now, 6dof hand and head tracking will continue to be remembered as the core boundary between VR and not-VR, with the vive and rift being the 1st gen consumer VR devices.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    >It's still Virtual Reality. It really isn't. 6DoF with hand presence is profoundly, fundamentally different to 3DoF. It's the difference between someone taking off the headset after a brief demo and saying "that was cool" versus someone taking off the headset and needing a moment to recalibrate their sense of reality. 3DoF is a panoramic monitor, 6DoF is being there.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      It's just a better version of Virtual Reality. You don't get to redefine the term we've been using since the 80's. I have an Oculus Rift, I am aware how much better 6DoF is, you don't have to tell me. That doesn't mean 6DoF is a requirement of VR. One day people like you will be saying that VR without eye-tracking and modern locomotion isn't really VR, because it's not as immersive.

by japhyr 7y ago

shafyy 7y ago

While the Labo is great, we should avoid describing it as VR. The same is true for Google Cardboard. The experience in a "true" VR headset that offers 6 DoF and hands, such as the Oculus Quest, is just something completely different.

kkarakk 7y ago
It's functionally VR and is most current gen folk's/kids first experience with VR. There is no point gatekeeping it Unless you think ~20 million headset VR users is somehow a large number of people in a world saturated with smartphones
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >It's functionally VR and is most current gen folk's/kids first experience with VR. There is no point gatekeeping it A Zoetrope is technically a moving picture, but it's a fundamentally different category of thing to a real movie. Sticking your smartphone in a glorified ViewMaster is a cool gimmick, but it's a pretty disappointing experience after the very brief novelty has worn off. If we don't very clearly delineate "real VR" (6DoF, low latency, hand presence), we risk poisoning the well for the whole industry.
japhyr 7y ago
What would you call it? It feels completely different than any game I've played before. Your comment makes me look forward to trying an Oculus when I have a chance.
- whywhywhywhy 7y ago
  It's still VR but I think the gap between a "Google Cardboard"-like experience and real VR is huge. The 3D effect of VR is cool but the real magic is using controllers in true 3D space, the Oculus ones are really well designed and just sort of fade away and feel like your hands.
  - shafyy 7y ago
    Exactly. Obviously, it's still VR. However, because the gap between say an Oculus Quest and a Google Cardboard is so massive, calling both VR without further specifying is not very sensible to me. It's almost like a completely different technology, the only similarity being that optical lenses are used between the screen and the user's eyes.
  - saberdancer 7y ago
    3DOF vs 6DOF could mean less depending on the experience you try out. If you try out a well designed 3DOF experience that can work quite well, especially as the same experience in 6DOF won't be drastically different. But when you try out a good 6DOF experience WITH hand/controller tracking, that is a game changer. Being able to pick up things and interact with them in a natural way, this makes it real for me.
- jayd16 7y ago
  The gap between a 6DOF headset and a 3DOF headset is almost as much as the gap between a 3DOF headset and simple stereoscopic images. The 3DOF viewers are whimsical but a good full motion VR experience can actually click you into full immersion. The kind of immersion where you might accidentally lean on a table or wall that doesn't exist.
soulofmischief 7y ago
I could make the same argument that lack of eye tracking, native speech inference, better locomotion strategies, and higher resolution mean that today's cutting-edge VR headsets will be subject to the same misplaced scrutiny that you're currently giving the cheap, commoditized headsets. It's still Virtual Reality.
- gfodor 7y ago
  Not really. It’s subjective, but full head and hand tracking is a radically different experience then all sub-options, and the things you mention do not seem to be as radical an improvement in comparison.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    The things I mentioned are critical for increased rendering efficiency and full immersion. One day they will be deemed as essential to the experience, and people will lament current tech as not VR.
    - gfodor 7y ago
      Agree to disagree. I think that 10 years from now, 6dof hand and head tracking will continue to be remembered as the core boundary between VR and not-VR, with the vive and rift being the 1st gen consumer VR devices.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >It's still Virtual Reality. It really isn't. 6DoF with hand presence is profoundly, fundamentally different to 3DoF. It's the difference between someone taking off the headset after a brief demo and saying "that was cool" versus someone taking off the headset and needing a moment to recalibrate their sense of reality. 3DoF is a panoramic monitor, 6DoF is being there.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    It's just a better version of Virtual Reality. You don't get to redefine the term we've been using since the 80's. I have an Oculus Rift, I am aware how much better 6DoF is, you don't have to tell me. That doesn't mean 6DoF is a requirement of VR. One day people like you will be saying that VR without eye-tracking and modern locomotion isn't really VR, because it's not as immersive.