7 ms·

I'd say that is the same as a dead end. Right now this is a very expensive, multi-billion dollar toy with toy demonstrator apps and proof of concept games. It n

I'd say that is the same as a dead end. Right now this is a very expensive, multi-billion dollar toy with toy demonstrator apps and proof of concept games. It needs to be a game changer and the future of something or the research funding and developer ecosystem are going to dry up. And given the amount that Facebook must be losing on the Quest 2 and the all-in nature of this launch, if this doesn't take off now, the runway for Oculus at FB may be over.

ben_w 6y ago
In my opinion it’s just like every other games console: an expensive toy that no one needs and lots of people buy anyway because it’s decent fun.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Meh, the resolution is super close to where it needs to be to read comfortably in the headset and do real work (and with wireless headsets with inside-out tracking, the annoying setup overhead is all but eliminated). That can make it a valuable peripheral, like a nice monitor without all the space requirements. It won't likely ever be as big of a platform as smartphones are, though. So I overall agree with you.
munificent 6y ago
> It needs to be a game changer and the future of something or the research funding and developer ecosystem are going to dry up. I hate that we live in a world so dominated by network effects, economies of scale, corporate consolidation, and shareholder value that there are fewer and fewer realms where "small success" still exists.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  Me too, but then given the complexity of this tech, I think it's much closer by order of magnitude to a moon landing worth of engineering than Pat's Sustainable Bamboo Bicycles. Big projects, big scale, big money.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Palmer lucky literally did built the first Occulus in his garage. I don't think it's fair to compare this technology to the moon landing. You're right that some sort of ready player one metaverse thing is probably on that level, but creating genuinely interesting, fun VR experiences that may in many ways be more interesting and unique does not to me seem beyond the scope of small scale business. In a sense VR is one of the purest versions of that sort of cyberspace idealism, it's an escape hatch away from curated, corporate products to whatever people want to make. So I'm not pessimistic that creative people find things to built.
- smolder 6y ago
  Me, too. I think economic pressures like you described generally harm quality of life. We end up with less "real wealth" --all the work-products that would otherwise make net QoL better, for the sake of monetary wealth concentration. As usual this comes down to the incentives and disincentives we've baked into our system not aligning with the best overall outcome. They align with the perceived needs of the biggest fish only.
  - kkdsafjid 6y ago
    Being able to buy a VR headset for 400$ is "real wealth".
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      I have to disagree. This argument comes up in every discussion about wealth inequality. 'The non-wealthy can't complain, because everything is so cheap now.' Real wealth is, you know... actual wealth. It's being able to start a high 6-figure to 8-figure business (or even smaller if you are satisfied) and not being laughed at as a failure. It's being able to buy rather than rent everything you want to buy. It's having productive assets.
      - kkdsafjid 6y ago
        People can now buy a haedset for 400$, rather than 100000$. That creates wealth. That you personally care more about starting a business than about using a VR headset is not really relevant.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        It creates purchasing power only in VR, but that is not the same thing as wealth. I think it's important to keep that distinction. Wealth is more directly connected to financial stability than the price of specific technology products.
        kkdsafjid 6y ago
- kkdsafjid 6y ago
  Um, it is simply very expensive to create a good VR experience. It's not expensive BECAUSE of network effects and economies of scale and corporations. It is only POSSIBLE and AFFORDABLE because of those things. For another example, to make a modern movie can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is only possible to make them because there are many people who will possibly watch it and pay for it. Nobody would be able to film the Lord of The Rings trilogy in their own basement just for their own entertainment. Not yet, anyway - tools of the future may make it possible ("GPT-300, make me a good movie based on the LOTR books").
- dntrkv 6y ago
  There are plenty of places where "small success" still exists, usually in the form of tools that solve a problem for a specific trade/industry/etc. Though you won't see these small successes on HN. As a society we need a way to determine where we invest resources. Some of those metrics you mentioned, though not perfect, are proxies for evaluating whether or not we should be investing more in certain tech. Otherwise, how would we determine where we should spend our limited resources?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Wait a minute, small successes still exist. There are orders of magnitudes more objects available to purchase than two decades ago. The success of mega projects (iphone, etc.) creates a massive supply chain (mostly in China) of people putting things together in different ways to make random stuff. E.g.: http://www.arcadeguns.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=345 http://www.arcadeguns.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&p... I was just looking at this to turn our entire wall into a shooting arcade with Aimtrak lightguns to help kill time during the winter pandemic. This was not possible ten years ago.
- paxys 6y ago
  Small successes haven't gone anywhere. However a system that needs billions of dollars in corporate funding worth of research to come into existence cannot be one by definition.
  - criddell 6y ago
    What makes you think VR headsets take billions of dollars to launch? The first Oculus was a Kickstarter project.
    - dougmwne 6y ago
      I think what Facebook and its vendors are building takes huge investment and lots of the best engineers you can hire. It's not just an lcd panel with lenses glued on, it's a room scale computer vision system, a VR optimised cpu/gpu with a suite of sensors, a VR software platform, controllers packed with sensors, computer vision tracking of controllers and hands, developer tools, a consumer app store, first party apps, a social VR metaverse, a telemetry system, a manufacturing and distribution supply chain, and a marketing push to get it into millions of hands (and it's also highly likely each headset is sold at a loss). I don't know how much money it takes to do all that, but I know you can't raise it on kickstarter.
      - criddell 6y ago
        Some of that might be difficult, but none of it is impossible and all of it is getting easier and easier. Some parts don't need to be invented or kickstarted because it exists already and is ready to go.
    - paxys 6y ago
      It also used to cause motion sickness, had terrible resolution, lots of lag and no games/software that supported it. AR/VR as a whole has come a LONG way since then to make it an actual consumer product.
genghisjahn 6y ago
Have you played Onward on the Quest?
criddell 6y ago
If the market is about 10 - 20 million users, that's plenty to support developers and future development. The investors who made big bets probably aren't going to see much of a return on that money, but that's okay. VC money is probably bad for the sector in the long run anyway. Don't forget that the current generation of VR hardware has roots back to a Kickstarter project. Billions of dollars are investment aren't needed.
koiz 6y ago
>Right now this is a very expensive, multi-billion dollar toy with toy demonstrator apps and proof of concept games. We are far past tech demos and concept games.
- mjparrott 6y ago
  For example?
  - blackearl 6y ago
    Beat Saber is the obvious answer with the most general appeal.
    - Animats 6y ago
      Right. Beat Saber works because the virtual world does not rotate relative to the real world. That rotation is what induces nausea. The player is confined to a small box in the virtual world; they never move very far, and the virtual world is locked to the real world.[1] Games with that constraint are limited. You could do ping-pong. Shooting galleries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV1sw4lfwFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV1sw4lfwFw
      - blackearl 6y ago
        Ok but it's not a tech demo or some proof of concept. It's a fully fleshed out game with high profile DLC and a strong mod community. Nausea has nothing to do with this.
      - andybak 6y ago
        I'm not sure your understanding of VR motion sickness is quite right. Most people are completely fine with teleport locomotion which is sufficient for a huge class ofs games. Also cockpits seem to reduce nausea thus opening up another broad category. It's mostly smooth first person motion with strafing and smooth turning that is problematic.
  - koiz 6y ago
alasdair_ 6y ago
> proof of concept games Half Life: Alyx is a fantastic AAA game that in no way feels like a proof of concept. Strongly recommend playing it. (Beat Saber too)

ben_w 6y ago

In my opinion it’s just like every other games console: an expensive toy that no one needs and lots of people buy anyway because it’s decent fun.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Meh, the resolution is super close to where it needs to be to read comfortably in the headset and do real work (and with wireless headsets with inside-out tracking, the annoying setup overhead is all but eliminated). That can make it a valuable peripheral, like a nice monitor without all the space requirements. It won't likely ever be as big of a platform as smartphones are, though. So I overall agree with you.

munificent 6y ago

> It needs to be a game changer and the future of something or the research funding and developer ecosystem are going to dry up. I hate that we live in a world so dominated by network effects, economies of scale, corporate consolidation, and shareholder value that there are fewer and fewer realms where "small success" still exists.

dougmwne 6y ago
Me too, but then given the complexity of this tech, I think it's much closer by order of magnitude to a moon landing worth of engineering than Pat's Sustainable Bamboo Bicycles. Big projects, big scale, big money.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Palmer lucky literally did built the first Occulus in his garage. I don't think it's fair to compare this technology to the moon landing. You're right that some sort of ready player one metaverse thing is probably on that level, but creating genuinely interesting, fun VR experiences that may in many ways be more interesting and unique does not to me seem beyond the scope of small scale business. In a sense VR is one of the purest versions of that sort of cyberspace idealism, it's an escape hatch away from curated, corporate products to whatever people want to make. So I'm not pessimistic that creative people find things to built.
smolder 6y ago
Me, too. I think economic pressures like you described generally harm quality of life. We end up with less "real wealth" --all the work-products that would otherwise make net QoL better, for the sake of monetary wealth concentration. As usual this comes down to the incentives and disincentives we've baked into our system not aligning with the best overall outcome. They align with the perceived needs of the biggest fish only.
- kkdsafjid 6y ago
  Being able to buy a VR headset for 400$ is "real wealth".
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    I have to disagree. This argument comes up in every discussion about wealth inequality. 'The non-wealthy can't complain, because everything is so cheap now.' Real wealth is, you know... actual wealth. It's being able to start a high 6-figure to 8-figure business (or even smaller if you are satisfied) and not being laughed at as a failure. It's being able to buy rather than rent everything you want to buy. It's having productive assets.
    - kkdsafjid 6y ago
      People can now buy a haedset for 400$, rather than 100000$. That creates wealth. That you personally care more about starting a business than about using a VR headset is not really relevant.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        It creates purchasing power only in VR, but that is not the same thing as wealth. I think it's important to keep that distinction. Wealth is more directly connected to financial stability than the price of specific technology products.
        kkdsafjid 6y ago
kkdsafjid 6y ago
Um, it is simply very expensive to create a good VR experience. It's not expensive BECAUSE of network effects and economies of scale and corporations. It is only POSSIBLE and AFFORDABLE because of those things. For another example, to make a modern movie can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is only possible to make them because there are many people who will possibly watch it and pay for it. Nobody would be able to film the Lord of The Rings trilogy in their own basement just for their own entertainment. Not yet, anyway - tools of the future may make it possible ("GPT-300, make me a good movie based on the LOTR books").
dntrkv 6y ago
There are plenty of places where "small success" still exists, usually in the form of tools that solve a problem for a specific trade/industry/etc. Though you won't see these small successes on HN. As a society we need a way to determine where we invest resources. Some of those metrics you mentioned, though not perfect, are proxies for evaluating whether or not we should be investing more in certain tech. Otherwise, how would we determine where we should spend our limited resources?
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Wait a minute, small successes still exist. There are orders of magnitudes more objects available to purchase than two decades ago. The success of mega projects (iphone, etc.) creates a massive supply chain (mostly in China) of people putting things together in different ways to make random stuff. E.g.: http://www.arcadeguns.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=345 http://www.arcadeguns.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&p... I was just looking at this to turn our entire wall into a shooting arcade with Aimtrak lightguns to help kill time during the winter pandemic. This was not possible ten years ago.
paxys 6y ago
Small successes haven't gone anywhere. However a system that needs billions of dollars in corporate funding worth of research to come into existence cannot be one by definition.
- criddell 6y ago
  What makes you think VR headsets take billions of dollars to launch? The first Oculus was a Kickstarter project.
  - dougmwne 6y ago
    I think what Facebook and its vendors are building takes huge investment and lots of the best engineers you can hire. It's not just an lcd panel with lenses glued on, it's a room scale computer vision system, a VR optimised cpu/gpu with a suite of sensors, a VR software platform, controllers packed with sensors, computer vision tracking of controllers and hands, developer tools, a consumer app store, first party apps, a social VR metaverse, a telemetry system, a manufacturing and distribution supply chain, and a marketing push to get it into millions of hands (and it's also highly likely each headset is sold at a loss). I don't know how much money it takes to do all that, but I know you can't raise it on kickstarter.
    - criddell 6y ago
      Some of that might be difficult, but none of it is impossible and all of it is getting easier and easier. Some parts don't need to be invented or kickstarted because it exists already and is ready to go.
  - paxys 6y ago
    It also used to cause motion sickness, had terrible resolution, lots of lag and no games/software that supported it. AR/VR as a whole has come a LONG way since then to make it an actual consumer product.

genghisjahn 6y ago

Have you played Onward on the Quest?

criddell 6y ago

If the market is about 10 - 20 million users, that's plenty to support developers and future development. The investors who made big bets probably aren't going to see much of a return on that money, but that's okay. VC money is probably bad for the sector in the long run anyway. Don't forget that the current generation of VR hardware has roots back to a Kickstarter project. Billions of dollars are investment aren't needed.

koiz 6y ago

>Right now this is a very expensive, multi-billion dollar toy with toy demonstrator apps and proof of concept games. We are far past tech demos and concept games.

mjparrott 6y ago
For example?
- blackearl 6y ago
  Beat Saber is the obvious answer with the most general appeal.
  - Animats 6y ago
    Right. Beat Saber works because the virtual world does not rotate relative to the real world. That rotation is what induces nausea. The player is confined to a small box in the virtual world; they never move very far, and the virtual world is locked to the real world.[1] Games with that constraint are limited. You could do ping-pong. Shooting galleries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV1sw4lfwFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV1sw4lfwFw
    - blackearl 6y ago
      Ok but it's not a tech demo or some proof of concept. It's a fully fleshed out game with high profile DLC and a strong mod community. Nausea has nothing to do with this.
    - andybak 6y ago
      I'm not sure your understanding of VR motion sickness is quite right. Most people are completely fine with teleport locomotion which is sufficient for a huge class ofs games. Also cockpits seem to reduce nausea thus opening up another broad category. It's mostly smooth first person motion with strafing and smooth turning that is problematic.
- koiz 6y ago

alasdair_ 6y ago

> proof of concept games Half Life: Alyx is a fantastic AAA game that in no way feels like a proof of concept. Strongly recommend playing it. (Beat Saber too)