3 ms·

I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with an FB account and now by running ads). Most peo

I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with an FB account and now by running ads). Most people probably want to see a VR platform that can stand on its own profit mechanisms. Not something that is parasitically dependent on another platform's ad revenue (either directly with internal ads or indirectly via FB accounts). Instead of taking time to explore that (which is what many believed would happen after the acquisition), FB took the easy way out by bolting existing revenue systems on, which then in turn kills any motivation to explore options. Similar kinds of worries always play out for technologies/platforms that are good but aren't profitable yet which then get acquired. Will the new owners help the technology stand on its own, or will they take the easy way out and treat it as a mechanism to bring new users onto their existing revenue stream.

shadowgovt 5y ago
I've been following VR technology's development for over two decades now, and the concern that those profit mechanisms don't exist at the margins necessary to sustain the business is real. I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness, requiring a dedicated usage space that is hard to share with other uses in a family setting, which (up until the most recent iterations) sold at a price point that was uncomfortable to most people for a luxury product. More revenue streams to support it is better than fewer, at least at this stage of its development.
- jabbany 5y ago
  Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality there are many other confounds...) It's why many people wished to see that rather than an acquisition (where the new owners can do what they want) for Oculus. Back in the day, FB tried to placate these worries by suggesting that even with an acquisition they would try to behave like a VC and keep Oculus more-or-less independent. At this point it is clear that that dream is over. People aren't angry, just disappointed. Eventually we will all lose hope on these things. Heck, many already have.
  - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
    Agree and have. It is now a world for the F.....s of the world to buy and sell or buy and kill. I would never give FB a dime after the behavior and false statements of the last several years. Sure the downvotes might be high, well HN has an agenda as well.
    - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
      Why is HN killing all my posts?
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness FWIW the Quest and Index have largely solved this problem. There are still certain experiences in VR which require more motion-sickness acclimation, such as roller coasters or fast-moving shooters. However, 1:1 motion experiences no longer cause problems for even the most sensitive players, in my experience. I've demoed current VR hardware to highly sensitive friends and family members without issue. The same friends and family couldn't tolerate earlier generations of VR for more than a few minutes.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I completely agree that the latest generation is much better than previous tech. I'm referring to the fact that 3D will always inherently have a floor of non-acclimatable users that TV doesn't. People experience motion sickness from TV also, but it can be mitigated by sitting further back. There's fundamentally no similar option in VR if the immersion alone is disorienting; the immersion is the point.
    - neartheplain 5y ago
      100% anecdotal, but: my elderly mother can't watch kids play console games on TV without rapidly experiencing motion sickness. She does just fine in VR (mini-golf is her favorite game on the Quest). I'd love to see actual data on the issue. Until then, I'm optimistic that VR's floor of non-acclimatable users is similar to or smaller than the same for regular video game consoles.

shadowgovt 5y ago

I've been following VR technology's development for over two decades now, and the concern that those profit mechanisms don't exist at the margins necessary to sustain the business is real. I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness, requiring a dedicated usage space that is hard to share with other uses in a family setting, which (up until the most recent iterations) sold at a price point that was uncomfortable to most people for a luxury product. More revenue streams to support it is better than fewer, at least at this stage of its development.

jabbany 5y ago
Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality there are many other confounds...) It's why many people wished to see that rather than an acquisition (where the new owners can do what they want) for Oculus. Back in the day, FB tried to placate these worries by suggesting that even with an acquisition they would try to behave like a VC and keep Oculus more-or-less independent. At this point it is clear that that dream is over. People aren't angry, just disappointed. Eventually we will all lose hope on these things. Heck, many already have.
- b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
  Agree and have. It is now a world for the F.....s of the world to buy and sell or buy and kill. I would never give FB a dime after the behavior and false statements of the last several years. Sure the downvotes might be high, well HN has an agenda as well.
  - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
    Why is HN killing all my posts?
neartheplain 5y ago
>I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness FWIW the Quest and Index have largely solved this problem. There are still certain experiences in VR which require more motion-sickness acclimation, such as roller coasters or fast-moving shooters. However, 1:1 motion experiences no longer cause problems for even the most sensitive players, in my experience. I've demoed current VR hardware to highly sensitive friends and family members without issue. The same friends and family couldn't tolerate earlier generations of VR for more than a few minutes.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I completely agree that the latest generation is much better than previous tech. I'm referring to the fact that 3D will always inherently have a floor of non-acclimatable users that TV doesn't. People experience motion sickness from TV also, but it can be mitigated by sitting further back. There's fundamentally no similar option in VR if the immersion alone is disorienting; the immersion is the point.
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    100% anecdotal, but: my elderly mother can't watch kids play console games on TV without rapidly experiencing motion sickness. She does just fine in VR (mini-golf is her favorite game on the Quest). I'd love to see actual data on the issue. Until then, I'm optimistic that VR's floor of non-acclimatable users is similar to or smaller than the same for regular video game consoles.