6 ms·

will 3D/VR ever really become mainstream? i recently bought a PSVR2, the tech seemed amazing but i had to return it due to horrible motion sickness. we're at

will 3D/VR ever really become mainstream? i recently bought a PSVR2, the tech seemed amazing but i had to return it due to horrible motion sickness. we're at almost 30 years of the tech still not being ready for prime time.

edent 4y ago
Not until they overcome the need for the viewer to do something. Moving from mono sound to stereo doesn't require anything of the listener. Going from black and white to colour doesn't require you wear special equipment. But 3D? You have to put on special glasses which you also have to remember to charge. Oh, and you can't look at other things while you're using them. There were some passive 3D displays (the Nintendo 3DS and a few early Android phones) but they required the user to stay in exactly the right position, or the illusion was destroyed. So you couldn't easily share the experience with a friend. Until we have TVs which can shoot lasers directly into our eyeballs, I think the barrier to entry is too high.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  These kinds of VR headsets don't need to be charged (they are wired) and you can press a button to see the real world through the cameras.
  - edent 4y ago
    So now I need to be physically tethered to my seat? Do I press the button on the left or the right? Is it one tap to see the real world or two?
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      The cable is long enough that your room will run out before you run out of cable, so no need to be tethered to your seat. Generally to pass through the real world you'd do something like simulatenously press two easily accessible buttons on your tracked controller. It is really very easy and I use it often.
- dweekly 4y ago
  Note there are several active participants in the equipment-free 3D display space: usually by building head tracking (so the display is "single player" - can only accommodate one viewer at a time) and clever separated left eye / right eye projection. EDIT: Apparently ASUS has a laptop that does this too! https://www.asus.com/content/asus-spatial-vision-technology/ https://www.asus.com/content/asus-spatial-vision-technology/
- vlunkr 4y ago
  The other thing about mono->stereo and monochrome->color is that they were backwards compatible. And even when creators adopted the new style, they didn't fundamentally change what they were doing. With VR, the majority of popular games can't be ported 1:1 to VR. It either adds nothing so it's not worth it, or motion sickness requires removing or reinventing movement. It's almost like starting game design over from scratch.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    Racing games are an obvious exception: you get the benefit of increased immersion without needing new control schemes or gameplay.
- ytreyrty 4y ago
  yeah on the VR side apparently im supposed to undertake a training regimen to be able to tolerate it without feeling sick. this is on top of the already massive commitment of wearing a giant helmet on my head. of course none of this is mentioned on the product page. (to be fair sony has a very generous return policy on these, probably for that reason) it's unfortunate because VR GT7 was really cool until i started feeling horrible, but the sickness was very strong like from riding on a spinning carnival ride. i had to lie down the rest of the evening each time it happened.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    They should include a package of strong ginger candies in the box.
  - Firmwarrior 3y ago
    For anyone else reading this: Be careful, you have to stop before you start feeling a little sick, or you'll induce a semi-permanent adversion to VR If you try to fight through the nausea at all, it'll get worse every time until you feel sick just thinking about VR (That's the obnoxious training regimen he's talking about, and it sucks for sure)
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  The New 3DS has eye tracking and doesn't require you to stay in one spot. It's still single-user, but it is significantly more stable than the original 3DS.
- Tommstein 4y ago
  > But 3D? You have to put on special glasses which you also have to remember to charge. Oh, and you can't look at other things while you're using them. Passive 3-D glasses exist, and you can very much look at whatever you want while wearing them. > There were some passive 3D displays (the Nintendo 3DS and a few early Android phones) but they required the user to stay in exactly the right position, or the illusion was destroyed. So you couldn't easily share the experience with a friend. I had an HTC EVO 3D, and would kill to get that technology back. If friends and I can only look at stuff in 2-D at the same time, fine, nothing lost over the current status quo. But looking back at your pictures and videos in actual 3-D immerses you in the moment again in a way that's hard to describe.
vlunkr 4y ago
It's very popular right now, but it's really hard to tell if it's just a fad. Motion controls had a huge wave of popularity starting with the Wii, but that died off. It will be interesting to see.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >Motion controls had a huge wave of popularity starting with the Wii, but that died off. is there a consensus to why this is? was it just a fad/phase, or is it just too physically demanding so people literally and figuratively tired of it?
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    With Wii Sports, it somewhat felt like you were doing the correct action for the associated sport. With every other game, and Wii Sports after the novelty wore off, it felt like a clunky input method that usually led to mindlessly waggling the remote around.
    - explaininjs 4y ago
      Zelda's bow mechanic was fun. Sword fighting too. The switch controls feel drab in comparison, I can't really get into Breath of the Wild the same I did Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess.
      - ytreyrty 4y ago
        skyward sword was basically unplayable for me until the switch version with normal controls came out. i never was even able to get past the 2nd dungeon with motion controls. i do like the games where you can use motion controls of the controller to enhance your aiming.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Aiming with the Wii remote was always obnoxious for me. Even going through menus was a regular annoyance as the aiming was so finicky.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bullen 4y ago
The PSVR2 has persistence problems due to the pancake lenses taking up too much light. Basically the strobing can't be short enough (to not induce smear) because that would dim the picture too much. It makes everyone sick. The top of the line is still Quest 2, the display (120Hz) and fresnel lenses are better than most more expensive alternatives. And with DAS FrankenQuest you have comfort. Unfortunately Echo VR (the ONLY native game) closes in August! I do not expect the Quest 3 to deliver much benefit over the 2. Maybe the Quest 3 lite they are talking about. Surprisingly the Quest 2 is still DDR4 and has the same GFLOP as a 1030.
- tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
  The PSVR2 does not have pancake lenses nor persistence problems. It also has fresnel lenses and 120Hz refresh rate. I think there are only a couple headsets with pancake lenses at this point in time. Supposedly the PSVR2 has more advanced fresnel lenses than prior headsets of the same kind as well but I'm not versed enough in the technology to know.
  - bullen 3y ago
    You are right, but maybe that was the reason they couldn't use pancake? HDR is the reason for this, they need more brightness, so they sacrifice low persistence. Also all AAA experiences on PSVR2 run at 60 FPS and re-project to 120 FPS. So it's actually worse then my initial comment. Echo VR does 120 FPS without re-projection on a 15W device vs. 60 FPS on PS5 at 350W!!! I have been sucking in too much VR news lately after a 7 year hiatus (not counting 3 HL:A playthroughs) so I confused all the info, thx for setting me straight!
    - tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
      I believe the persistence issues come up with games that use reprojection from 60fps. I don't think its an issue with the screen itself just based on the raw specs from the screen. I don't get motion sickness from the PSVR2 like I would occasionally with the Rift CV1 but again, I'm not super knowledgeable about any of the underlying technology.
havblue 4y ago
I think people usually realize how pointless and uncomfortable it is every time they try it. "When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon'? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing." -Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies https://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70247 https://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70...
- voxelghost 4y ago
  I think something that also plays into this is the fact that 3D content producers, in their efforts to "show off" 3D capabilities, insist on breaking the 3:d wall by putting stuff into the viewers room, where they don't belong(mentally). I think this is why, to me, 3D movies look less "realistic" than 2D movies. It would be interesting to know if the "less realistic" effect was also something experienced by viewers at the time of the shift between monochrome and color movies. And if it was overcome by technology improvement, or by viewers simply getting used to the new media.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    I think the bigger issue is that most of what's presented as "3-D" in modern times is fake. Most people have seen exactly one movie that was shot and rendered in true 3-D: Avatar (well, that's two movies now). Other than that, they may have seen a Pixar movie or Hugo in true 3-D. Or the Transformers one where they rampage through Chicago. Otherwise, it has all been post-processed fake-3-D crap that unsurprisingly turned audiences off. Also there's a misconception that 3-D is only good for spectacular movies. Hugo showed otherwise, and anyone who has experience taking 3-D pictures knows that the best ones are often indoor scenes of dinner tables or rooms or normal objects, or water.
musha68k 4y ago
You might have hit the “age wall” there, not enough “training” with VR also usually doesn’t help. The younglings I know all loved the PSVR2 experience much more so than the Quest which they were fans of before. So therefore probably more attuned, highly plastic brains to boot. I also get motion sick sometimes. It depends on the game, cockpits usually are fine. Those are the ones I’m more interested in anyways. PSVR2 is a literal game changer IMHO.
grumbel 3y ago
Given how things have been going, I don't think VR will hit mainstream until the resolution (PPD) of the headsets can compete with a TV/monitor. One of the main problem with VR right now is that it cuts you off from all the 2D content out there, the resolution is too low to browse the Web and watching movies in what is essentially less than 720p isn't great either. On top of that, most VR headsets just don't work as full monitor/TV replacement to begin with, due to not having a plain old HDMI input. The software side is also severely lacking, while it's possible to bring 2D content into VR on PC, it's extremely clunky and not well supported at all. Microsoft's WMR tried to build a "Windows desktop for VR", but with that dead now, it'll take years before anybody will try that again. The lack of resolution could of course be overcome by native VR content, that is build towards the other strengths of those headset. But there just doesn't seem enough interest in the industry to actually go that route, you can still count the total amount of good AAA content for VR on one hand. That's not enough to attract gamer's in mass and in turn developers aren't all that interested either. Xbox still staying away from VR isn't helping either, as that cuts off a large chunk of the potential market too. As for motion sickness, that's a somewhat unsolvable problem. Everything that makes the virtual body move without your real body moving will make people sick, no matter how good the headset is. One solution is to not move the virtual body (teleport locomotion), but that drastically limits what games you can do in VR and has been largely abandoned again by most games. The other alternative is to just get used to it, most people can adopt to some degree, but it can take time. I think the only real solution here is a generational shift, once every kid grew up with VR, the motion sickness issue might fade away, but that'll still take many years or even decades.

edent 4y ago

Not until they overcome the need for the viewer to do something. Moving from mono sound to stereo doesn't require anything of the listener. Going from black and white to colour doesn't require you wear special equipment. But 3D? You have to put on special glasses which you also have to remember to charge. Oh, and you can't look at other things while you're using them. There were some passive 3D displays (the Nintendo 3DS and a few early Android phones) but they required the user to stay in exactly the right position, or the illusion was destroyed. So you couldn't easily share the experience with a friend. Until we have TVs which can shoot lasers directly into our eyeballs, I think the barrier to entry is too high.

sudosysgen 4y ago
These kinds of VR headsets don't need to be charged (they are wired) and you can press a button to see the real world through the cameras.
- edent 4y ago
  So now I need to be physically tethered to my seat? Do I press the button on the left or the right? Is it one tap to see the real world or two?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The cable is long enough that your room will run out before you run out of cable, so no need to be tethered to your seat. Generally to pass through the real world you'd do something like simulatenously press two easily accessible buttons on your tracked controller. It is really very easy and I use it often.
dweekly 4y ago
Note there are several active participants in the equipment-free 3D display space: usually by building head tracking (so the display is "single player" - can only accommodate one viewer at a time) and clever separated left eye / right eye projection. EDIT: Apparently ASUS has a laptop that does this too! https://www.asus.com/content/asus-spatial-vision-technology/ https://www.asus.com/content/asus-spatial-vision-technology/
vlunkr 4y ago
The other thing about mono->stereo and monochrome->color is that they were backwards compatible. And even when creators adopted the new style, they didn't fundamentally change what they were doing. With VR, the majority of popular games can't be ported 1:1 to VR. It either adds nothing so it's not worth it, or motion sickness requires removing or reinventing movement. It's almost like starting game design over from scratch.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  Racing games are an obvious exception: you get the benefit of increased immersion without needing new control schemes or gameplay.
ytreyrty 4y ago
yeah on the VR side apparently im supposed to undertake a training regimen to be able to tolerate it without feeling sick. this is on top of the already massive commitment of wearing a giant helmet on my head. of course none of this is mentioned on the product page. (to be fair sony has a very generous return policy on these, probably for that reason) it's unfortunate because VR GT7 was really cool until i started feeling horrible, but the sickness was very strong like from riding on a spinning carnival ride. i had to lie down the rest of the evening each time it happened.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  They should include a package of strong ginger candies in the box.
- Firmwarrior 3y ago
  For anyone else reading this: Be careful, you have to stop before you start feeling a little sick, or you'll induce a semi-permanent adversion to VR If you try to fight through the nausea at all, it'll get worse every time until you feel sick just thinking about VR (That's the obnoxious training regimen he's talking about, and it sucks for sure)
frosted-flakes 4y ago
The New 3DS has eye tracking and doesn't require you to stay in one spot. It's still single-user, but it is significantly more stable than the original 3DS.
Tommstein 4y ago
> But 3D? You have to put on special glasses which you also have to remember to charge. Oh, and you can't look at other things while you're using them. Passive 3-D glasses exist, and you can very much look at whatever you want while wearing them. > There were some passive 3D displays (the Nintendo 3DS and a few early Android phones) but they required the user to stay in exactly the right position, or the illusion was destroyed. So you couldn't easily share the experience with a friend. I had an HTC EVO 3D, and would kill to get that technology back. If friends and I can only look at stuff in 2-D at the same time, fine, nothing lost over the current status quo. But looking back at your pictures and videos in actual 3-D immerses you in the moment again in a way that's hard to describe.

vlunkr 4y ago

It's very popular right now, but it's really hard to tell if it's just a fad. Motion controls had a huge wave of popularity starting with the Wii, but that died off. It will be interesting to see.

dylan604 4y ago
>Motion controls had a huge wave of popularity starting with the Wii, but that died off. is there a consensus to why this is? was it just a fad/phase, or is it just too physically demanding so people literally and figuratively tired of it?
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  With Wii Sports, it somewhat felt like you were doing the correct action for the associated sport. With every other game, and Wii Sports after the novelty wore off, it felt like a clunky input method that usually led to mindlessly waggling the remote around.
  - explaininjs 4y ago
    Zelda's bow mechanic was fun. Sword fighting too. The switch controls feel drab in comparison, I can't really get into Breath of the Wild the same I did Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess.
    - ytreyrty 4y ago
      skyward sword was basically unplayable for me until the switch version with normal controls came out. i never was even able to get past the 2nd dungeon with motion controls. i do like the games where you can use motion controls of the controller to enhance your aiming.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Aiming with the Wii remote was always obnoxious for me. Even going through menus was a regular annoyance as the aiming was so finicky.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bullen 4y ago

The PSVR2 has persistence problems due to the pancake lenses taking up too much light. Basically the strobing can't be short enough (to not induce smear) because that would dim the picture too much. It makes everyone sick. The top of the line is still Quest 2, the display (120Hz) and fresnel lenses are better than most more expensive alternatives. And with DAS FrankenQuest you have comfort. Unfortunately Echo VR (the ONLY native game) closes in August! I do not expect the Quest 3 to deliver much benefit over the 2. Maybe the Quest 3 lite they are talking about. Surprisingly the Quest 2 is still DDR4 and has the same GFLOP as a 1030.

tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
The PSVR2 does not have pancake lenses nor persistence problems. It also has fresnel lenses and 120Hz refresh rate. I think there are only a couple headsets with pancake lenses at this point in time. Supposedly the PSVR2 has more advanced fresnel lenses than prior headsets of the same kind as well but I'm not versed enough in the technology to know.
- bullen 3y ago
  You are right, but maybe that was the reason they couldn't use pancake? HDR is the reason for this, they need more brightness, so they sacrifice low persistence. Also all AAA experiences on PSVR2 run at 60 FPS and re-project to 120 FPS. So it's actually worse then my initial comment. Echo VR does 120 FPS without re-projection on a 15W device vs. 60 FPS on PS5 at 350W!!! I have been sucking in too much VR news lately after a 7 year hiatus (not counting 3 HL:A playthroughs) so I confused all the info, thx for setting me straight!
  - tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
    I believe the persistence issues come up with games that use reprojection from 60fps. I don't think its an issue with the screen itself just based on the raw specs from the screen. I don't get motion sickness from the PSVR2 like I would occasionally with the Rift CV1 but again, I'm not super knowledgeable about any of the underlying technology.

havblue 4y ago

I think people usually realize how pointless and uncomfortable it is every time they try it. "When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon'? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing." -Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies https://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70247 https://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70...

voxelghost 4y ago
I think something that also plays into this is the fact that 3D content producers, in their efforts to "show off" 3D capabilities, insist on breaking the 3:d wall by putting stuff into the viewers room, where they don't belong(mentally). I think this is why, to me, 3D movies look less "realistic" than 2D movies. It would be interesting to know if the "less realistic" effect was also something experienced by viewers at the time of the shift between monochrome and color movies. And if it was overcome by technology improvement, or by viewers simply getting used to the new media.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  I think the bigger issue is that most of what's presented as "3-D" in modern times is fake. Most people have seen exactly one movie that was shot and rendered in true 3-D: Avatar (well, that's two movies now). Other than that, they may have seen a Pixar movie or Hugo in true 3-D. Or the Transformers one where they rampage through Chicago. Otherwise, it has all been post-processed fake-3-D crap that unsurprisingly turned audiences off. Also there's a misconception that 3-D is only good for spectacular movies. Hugo showed otherwise, and anyone who has experience taking 3-D pictures knows that the best ones are often indoor scenes of dinner tables or rooms or normal objects, or water.

musha68k 4y ago

You might have hit the “age wall” there, not enough “training” with VR also usually doesn’t help. The younglings I know all loved the PSVR2 experience much more so than the Quest which they were fans of before. So therefore probably more attuned, highly plastic brains to boot. I also get motion sick sometimes. It depends on the game, cockpits usually are fine. Those are the ones I’m more interested in anyways. PSVR2 is a literal game changer IMHO.

grumbel 3y ago

Given how things have been going, I don't think VR will hit mainstream until the resolution (PPD) of the headsets can compete with a TV/monitor. One of the main problem with VR right now is that it cuts you off from all the 2D content out there, the resolution is too low to browse the Web and watching movies in what is essentially less than 720p isn't great either. On top of that, most VR headsets just don't work as full monitor/TV replacement to begin with, due to not having a plain old HDMI input. The software side is also severely lacking, while it's possible to bring 2D content into VR on PC, it's extremely clunky and not well supported at all. Microsoft's WMR tried to build a "Windows desktop for VR", but with that dead now, it'll take years before anybody will try that again. The lack of resolution could of course be overcome by native VR content, that is build towards the other strengths of those headset. But there just doesn't seem enough interest in the industry to actually go that route, you can still count the total amount of good AAA content for VR on one hand. That's not enough to attract gamer's in mass and in turn developers aren't all that interested either. Xbox still staying away from VR isn't helping either, as that cuts off a large chunk of the potential market too. As for motion sickness, that's a somewhat unsolvable problem. Everything that makes the virtual body move without your real body moving will make people sick, no matter how good the headset is. One solution is to not move the virtual body (teleport locomotion), but that drastically limits what games you can do in VR and has been largely abandoned again by most games. The other alternative is to just get used to it, most people can adopt to some degree, but it can take time. I think the only real solution here is a generational shift, once every kid grew up with VR, the motion sickness issue might fade away, but that'll still take many years or even decades.