5 ms·

No one wants VR because in its current state it simply sucks and is quite expensive for general adoption. In the early days no one wanted computers either.

mcv 4y ago
And VR will continue to suck if it remains tied to Facebook, like the Oculus stuff.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  The Oculus stuff is no longer tied to Facebook, though? I got an email recently about account changes, and was prompted to create a new account, with the option to link it to my Facebook account.
  - mcv 4y ago
    If that's the case for all Oculus devices, that would definitely be a massive improvement. I still see some people here complaining about the Facebook link, though.
taeric 4y ago
Bit of a false comparison, though. Computers obviously enable a lot more than VR seems to. I think there will be a market for VR. However, I'm not entirely convinced games and entertainment are it. Certainly I think there will be a market for those, as well; but I can't shake the feeling that it doesn't actually add too terribly much to them. The social aspect of entertainment is completely missed with VR. We want to do things /with people/ when we are being social. Is why people watch sports games in parties. Most of the folks at the party are marginally interested in the sport, but in the people they are there with. For games, 3d shooter is certainly a genre. But it isn't the only one. And the casual market that they hope to capture is largely not the 3d market.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  You know what would be a killer app kind of application for AR? A real life HUD you could just wear all the time. Anything that can be done with a smartphone these days but without the hassle of carrying a giant brick around that you need to fumble with. But to get to that stage you need to at the very least integrate all that functionality into a set of glasses (more than 60% of all people already wear glasses daily anyway), and you also need direct brain interfacing control to make it practically usable at all. Way beyond anything we can currently do these days unfortunately.
  - taeric 4y ago
    AR is a very different beast compared to VR. Such that, I agree moving to a HUD can be nice for many things. That said, requiring full body interactions for anything is a laughably bad non-starter. Looks great for performance art and movies, but is far from effective. And, as I said elsewhere, also not gaming/entertainment focused. Arguably anti-social.
- treis 4y ago
  It's hard to say until the technology gets to the point where you can start to match what a monitor does. You'd need a 8k or probably higher screen for each eye plus the graphics card to drive it at ~144hz. Then if you want it portable you need a battery to drive it. Once we're there then we can see what sort of future VR has.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I don't buy it. VR will always, by definition, be a race to feature parity with things in the real world. And escapism is often more about not replicating real life, such that all of the tactical feedback that goes into the majority of what folks thing will work in VR is as likely to be the reason to avoid it. Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement. So, you can get enhanced "you can turn your head to look around," but at the tremendous cost of "everything else about moving and interacting is completely broken. You will still need obviously untenable item management. Want to have many weapons? It will be hilariously off looking compared to everything else in the world. Can it help with some desktop management and such for work? I mean, maybe? It will definitely be a good aide. I'd wager the high level workers are already "retreating into their brain" for a lot of their work, such that I don't expect miracles out of AR assistance. Robotics and control do have a lot of promise, of course. But, again, I'm more questioning gaming and entertainment.
mywittyname 4y ago
I'm not sure that I'd call current VR tech "the early days". The VFX1 and those arcade cabinet VR systems were the "early days". The Occulus Rift came out six years ago. We are well into the phase of VR where improvements are incremental each generation.
- creshal 4y ago
  > We are well into the phase of VR where improvements are incremental each generation. If that's the end of it, VR is doomed to remain a curious niche. It struggles to deliver compelling results for thousands of dollars (headset plus powerful enough PC), and if all we ever get from now on are tiny incremental updates, we'll never reach a steady state where perceived quality, relative to contemporary 2D offerings, can keep up.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  I would consider those arcade cabinets equivalent to time sharing computers in labs of yesteryear. Current VR is about like the 286, it does some neat stuff but more promise than delivery.
twen_ty 4y ago
VR encourages staying in as opposed to going out - the whole thrust of technology should be that - so that humans could be more... human. The timeline where VR fits seamlessly in the latter is decades, away and betting on it as a company right now is madness.

mcv 4y ago

And VR will continue to suck if it remains tied to Facebook, like the Oculus stuff.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
The Oculus stuff is no longer tied to Facebook, though? I got an email recently about account changes, and was prompted to create a new account, with the option to link it to my Facebook account.
- mcv 4y ago
  If that's the case for all Oculus devices, that would definitely be a massive improvement. I still see some people here complaining about the Facebook link, though.

taeric 4y ago

Bit of a false comparison, though. Computers obviously enable a lot more than VR seems to. I think there will be a market for VR. However, I'm not entirely convinced games and entertainment are it. Certainly I think there will be a market for those, as well; but I can't shake the feeling that it doesn't actually add too terribly much to them. The social aspect of entertainment is completely missed with VR. We want to do things /with people/ when we are being social. Is why people watch sports games in parties. Most of the folks at the party are marginally interested in the sport, but in the people they are there with. For games, 3d shooter is certainly a genre. But it isn't the only one. And the casual market that they hope to capture is largely not the 3d market.

moffkalast 4y ago
You know what would be a killer app kind of application for AR? A real life HUD you could just wear all the time. Anything that can be done with a smartphone these days but without the hassle of carrying a giant brick around that you need to fumble with. But to get to that stage you need to at the very least integrate all that functionality into a set of glasses (more than 60% of all people already wear glasses daily anyway), and you also need direct brain interfacing control to make it practically usable at all. Way beyond anything we can currently do these days unfortunately.
- taeric 4y ago
  AR is a very different beast compared to VR. Such that, I agree moving to a HUD can be nice for many things. That said, requiring full body interactions for anything is a laughably bad non-starter. Looks great for performance art and movies, but is far from effective. And, as I said elsewhere, also not gaming/entertainment focused. Arguably anti-social.
treis 4y ago
It's hard to say until the technology gets to the point where you can start to match what a monitor does. You'd need a 8k or probably higher screen for each eye plus the graphics card to drive it at ~144hz. Then if you want it portable you need a battery to drive it. Once we're there then we can see what sort of future VR has.
- taeric 4y ago
  I don't buy it. VR will always, by definition, be a race to feature parity with things in the real world. And escapism is often more about not replicating real life, such that all of the tactical feedback that goes into the majority of what folks thing will work in VR is as likely to be the reason to avoid it. Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement. So, you can get enhanced "you can turn your head to look around," but at the tremendous cost of "everything else about moving and interacting is completely broken. You will still need obviously untenable item management. Want to have many weapons? It will be hilariously off looking compared to everything else in the world. Can it help with some desktop management and such for work? I mean, maybe? It will definitely be a good aide. I'd wager the high level workers are already "retreating into their brain" for a lot of their work, such that I don't expect miracles out of AR assistance. Robotics and control do have a lot of promise, of course. But, again, I'm more questioning gaming and entertainment.

mywittyname 4y ago

I'm not sure that I'd call current VR tech "the early days". The VFX1 and those arcade cabinet VR systems were the "early days". The Occulus Rift came out six years ago. We are well into the phase of VR where improvements are incremental each generation.

creshal 4y ago
> We are well into the phase of VR where improvements are incremental each generation. If that's the end of it, VR is doomed to remain a curious niche. It struggles to deliver compelling results for thousands of dollars (headset plus powerful enough PC), and if all we ever get from now on are tiny incremental updates, we'll never reach a steady state where perceived quality, relative to contemporary 2D offerings, can keep up.
stonemetal12 4y ago
I would consider those arcade cabinets equivalent to time sharing computers in labs of yesteryear. Current VR is about like the 286, it does some neat stuff but more promise than delivery.

twen_ty 4y ago

VR encourages staying in as opposed to going out - the whole thrust of technology should be that - so that humans could be more... human. The timeline where VR fits seamlessly in the latter is decades, away and betting on it as a company right now is madness.