3 ms·

My current impression of AR/VR is that is the new 3D TV: it is a futuristic-looking tech that big companies were pushing like crazy because its adoption would m

by soneca 5y ago

My current impression of AR/VR is that is the new 3D TV: it is a futuristic-looking tech that big companies were pushing like crazy because its adoption would mean a whole new market and revenue stream to be created. Only that no one really wanted to adopt it. The difference is that I never saw myself ever buying a 3D TV (and always hated 3D cinema), but I consider the possibility of being a late adopter of AR/VR several years from now.

ghaff 5y ago
I actually have one because the 3D part was essentially free at one point. Of course I have almost no 3D media to play on it.
andybak 5y ago
People have been making this comparison since the Rift DK2 was released 5 or so years ago and it is still wrong. 3d TV never had broad buy in from enthusiasts, artists, developers or anyone else that VR has consistently maintained support from for half a decade with no sign is a drop off. I work in the arts and the level of enthusiasm and support is increasing if anything.
lostgame 5y ago
3D had a major problem that it never solved. I continually stated I’d be interested in 3D displays when they developed them using glasses-less technology. I avoid going to 3D films specifically to avoid wearing the glasses. But they never got that far. Beyond the gimmick of the 3DS screen, I’ve never seen glasses-less 3D. Let’s say you’re a couple and you have two pairs of glasses. What happens when you have friends over? Furthermore - the glasses were not interchangeable between brands of television sets, meaning it’s not like you could just bring a pair and expect them to work. A VR headset costs $300, and offers a truly unique experience that excites me as a developer and is very interesting as a user. A 3D TV cost more than a standard HDTV - and never really offered anything that made it worthwhile. IMHO it was DOA. The existence of VR cafes and interactive installations has already made VR a real ‘thing’. The inexpensive nature of the Oculus Quest is helping that a lot, too.
- Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
  LG 3D TVs used passive glasses (unlike the active glasses by Samsung). Basically pieces of colored plastic. You could get a pack of 6 for your friends very cheap, and reportedly even glasses from cinemas would work (I never personally tried that). I actually was annoyed when they removed 3D from their TV lineups. It's not something I used very regularly, but I did enjoy it from time to time. And it was just software, no actual hardware cost added AFAIK. I get that most people didn't use it but at least they should have kept the choice.
DougWebb 5y ago
One of the reasons I bought a Quest 1 was because it has apps that can connect to my Plex server and play 3D movies. It's neat, and nicely replicates the 3D theater experience including barely being able to see clearly through the grubby lenses. I only have a few 3D movies and don't bother watching them anymore. I do still watch lots of 2D content using the Quest, though. I like the immersive feel of watching movies and TV on theater-sized screens with none of the visual distractions in my living room.

by soneca 5y ago

ghaff 5y ago

I actually have one because the 3D part was essentially free at one point. Of course I have almost no 3D media to play on it.

andybak 5y ago

People have been making this comparison since the Rift DK2 was released 5 or so years ago and it is still wrong. 3d TV never had broad buy in from enthusiasts, artists, developers or anyone else that VR has consistently maintained support from for half a decade with no sign is a drop off. I work in the arts and the level of enthusiasm and support is increasing if anything.

lostgame 5y ago

3D had a major problem that it never solved. I continually stated I’d be interested in 3D displays when they developed them using glasses-less technology. I avoid going to 3D films specifically to avoid wearing the glasses. But they never got that far. Beyond the gimmick of the 3DS screen, I’ve never seen glasses-less 3D. Let’s say you’re a couple and you have two pairs of glasses. What happens when you have friends over? Furthermore - the glasses were not interchangeable between brands of television sets, meaning it’s not like you could just bring a pair and expect them to work. A VR headset costs $300, and offers a truly unique experience that excites me as a developer and is very interesting as a user. A 3D TV cost more than a standard HDTV - and never really offered anything that made it worthwhile. IMHO it was DOA. The existence of VR cafes and interactive installations has already made VR a real ‘thing’. The inexpensive nature of the Oculus Quest is helping that a lot, too.

Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
LG 3D TVs used passive glasses (unlike the active glasses by Samsung). Basically pieces of colored plastic. You could get a pack of 6 for your friends very cheap, and reportedly even glasses from cinemas would work (I never personally tried that). I actually was annoyed when they removed 3D from their TV lineups. It's not something I used very regularly, but I did enjoy it from time to time. And it was just software, no actual hardware cost added AFAIK. I get that most people didn't use it but at least they should have kept the choice.

DougWebb 5y ago

One of the reasons I bought a Quest 1 was because it has apps that can connect to my Plex server and play 3D movies. It's neat, and nicely replicates the 3D theater experience including barely being able to see clearly through the grubby lenses. I only have a few 3D movies and don't bother watching them anymore. I do still watch lots of 2D content using the Quest, though. I like the immersive feel of watching movies and TV on theater-sized screens with none of the visual distractions in my living room.