4 ms·

VR communication systems are a toy/gimmick like second life was. I have spent some time with VRchat and see no reason why it would end up becoming a primary met

VR communication systems are a toy/gimmick like second life was. I have spent some time with VRchat and see no reason why it would end up becoming a primary method of communication over IM/social media. Its a good way to mess around and have some fun but its less convenient than existing methods.

npo9 7y ago
That’s true today. Is it true 10 years from today? If AR/VR becomes built into a form factor similar to reading glasses today I suspect we will see a lot more avatar based chatting.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  For what purpose though? Front facing cameras are in every device now and IM/voice chat is still more common. I guess it depends if you are communicating for function or for social/entertainment purposes. I just don't see the added value of avatar communication other than the novelty of being a video game character or a fox person
  - gfodor 7y ago
    The value of avatar based communication, vs video in particular, is about: - social presence: the feeling of being together and of unmediated communication - shared spatial awareness: the ability to have a shared reference frame of physical reality these are the two key features of face to face communication that digital communication tools have largely failed to replicate. (as studied by academic research) I also conjecture there's a third: - ability to dynamically spawn and manipulate contextual mixed media in a shared spatial environment (videos, images, 3d models, data, etc) These three characteristics combined are met already today to some degree by modern day video games, but VR/AR seems likely to be the key tool to knock down much of the barrier regarding social presence due to its ability to transmit many more forms of non-verbal communication between people than existing tools.
gfodor 7y ago
It seems highly likely 5-10 years from now you will be able to wear a device that is comfortable and unobtrusive that can deliver the presence of any other connected user to you instantly, including body language and full spatial awareness. In such a world where these devices exist, it would be pretty stunning to think people would not use them regularly for such purposes.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  There are a few things that make it less convenient. One of them like you pointed out is the size and comfort issues but there are other issues. VR/AR chats require your full attention / real time communication. Most communication has left phone calls and moved to asynchronous communication methods. Another is limitations of the space, people spend a large % of there communication time on public transport, instant messaging translates well to this since it requires no listening or making noise and requires minimal space. Full body tracking and spacial awareness is useless when you are sitting down. I think if people really wanted to primary communicate with facial/avatar awareness, we would see everyone using video calls over social media and IMs. I think VR/AR communication has some place in the future but I do not see it becoming a serious/primary communication tool.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    I'm confused, are you arguing that video calls are not a primary communication tool? If avatar based comms became as common as video calls I'd consider that a primary tool. Besides, the idea is not that this would meaningfully displace existing media (except perhaps video for some use-cases), but provide a fundamentally new medium for communication that has no present day analog other than face-to-face. Much like current tools, you'd use it when it is the ideal context and situation for it to be maximally useful. Video calls and other media have distinct tradeoffs, and are objectively worse than face-to-face along a variety of dimensions. The argument is simple, if you believe: - people value face-to-face over existing digital communication tools for certain contexts - VR and AR based communication meaningfully approaches face-to-face in certain ways that existing tools do not - VR and AR technology will eventually get to a point where it is ubiquitous Then it seems that tech will be used for those purposes. Either of the latter two assumptions could be wrong, but early research [1] supports the argument of first, and based upon the tech track the second seems highly likely. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173863 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173863

npo9 7y ago

That’s true today. Is it true 10 years from today? If AR/VR becomes built into a form factor similar to reading glasses today I suspect we will see a lot more avatar based chatting.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
For what purpose though? Front facing cameras are in every device now and IM/voice chat is still more common. I guess it depends if you are communicating for function or for social/entertainment purposes. I just don't see the added value of avatar communication other than the novelty of being a video game character or a fox person
- gfodor 7y ago
  The value of avatar based communication, vs video in particular, is about: - social presence: the feeling of being together and of unmediated communication - shared spatial awareness: the ability to have a shared reference frame of physical reality these are the two key features of face to face communication that digital communication tools have largely failed to replicate. (as studied by academic research) I also conjecture there's a third: - ability to dynamically spawn and manipulate contextual mixed media in a shared spatial environment (videos, images, 3d models, data, etc) These three characteristics combined are met already today to some degree by modern day video games, but VR/AR seems likely to be the key tool to knock down much of the barrier regarding social presence due to its ability to transmit many more forms of non-verbal communication between people than existing tools.

gfodor 7y ago

It seems highly likely 5-10 years from now you will be able to wear a device that is comfortable and unobtrusive that can deliver the presence of any other connected user to you instantly, including body language and full spatial awareness. In such a world where these devices exist, it would be pretty stunning to think people would not use them regularly for such purposes.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
There are a few things that make it less convenient. One of them like you pointed out is the size and comfort issues but there are other issues. VR/AR chats require your full attention / real time communication. Most communication has left phone calls and moved to asynchronous communication methods. Another is limitations of the space, people spend a large % of there communication time on public transport, instant messaging translates well to this since it requires no listening or making noise and requires minimal space. Full body tracking and spacial awareness is useless when you are sitting down. I think if people really wanted to primary communicate with facial/avatar awareness, we would see everyone using video calls over social media and IMs. I think VR/AR communication has some place in the future but I do not see it becoming a serious/primary communication tool.
- gfodor 7y ago
  I'm confused, are you arguing that video calls are not a primary communication tool? If avatar based comms became as common as video calls I'd consider that a primary tool. Besides, the idea is not that this would meaningfully displace existing media (except perhaps video for some use-cases), but provide a fundamentally new medium for communication that has no present day analog other than face-to-face. Much like current tools, you'd use it when it is the ideal context and situation for it to be maximally useful. Video calls and other media have distinct tradeoffs, and are objectively worse than face-to-face along a variety of dimensions. The argument is simple, if you believe: - people value face-to-face over existing digital communication tools for certain contexts - VR and AR based communication meaningfully approaches face-to-face in certain ways that existing tools do not - VR and AR technology will eventually get to a point where it is ubiquitous Then it seems that tech will be used for those purposes. Either of the latter two assumptions could be wrong, but early research [1] supports the argument of first, and based upon the tech track the second seems highly likely. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173863 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173863