5 ms·

This is the first feature which makes me kind of excited for VR. I live away from my country and my parents for over 20 years and I’d love to be able to sit in

• ojo-rojo 1y ago
  +1 To add to the experience of connecting to people, I can also imagine our family members taking a photograph together while in VR of the family living room – a memento we can take away. That would work if our VR avatars are realistic representations of ourselves, which I think Meta can do (?)
  • lm28469 1y ago
    This sounds like an absolute nightmare. Technology disconnected us over decades, then gave us "solutions" to stay in touch 24/7, people are lonelier than ever but we keep pushing for more of this shit. You can already call and video call your family, basically for free, what does VR bring to the table ? "Hey John, grandpa will expire soon can you quickly jump in your headset and upload yourself to his VR cabin in the wood, the one we rent from MetaSpital for $99 a day, to take a selfie with him before he dies alone in a cold hospital room"
    • andybak 1y ago
      It's just another way to record a time and place. No more different to a video than a video is to a photo. Just slightly more fidelity. It's a good thing. It's a nice thing. Chill. I get that there's reasons to be angry at big tech but this isn't one of them. Accurate and easy 3d scanning, high fidelity rendering and a way to view in 6dof stereoscopic is just a great use case entirely separate from the machinations of our evil overlords.
      • lm28469 1y ago
        And how does a 3d rendered world that doesn't exist anywhere other than in a computer has more fidelity than real life ? > It's a good thing. It's a nice thing. Chill That's your opinion, the fact that VR tanked hard seems to indicate most people don't agree
        • itsdrewmiller 1y ago
          It has more fidelity than a photograph or a 2d video. No one has claimed it is higher fidelity than real life.
        • theshackleford 1y ago
          > And how does a 3d rendered world that doesn't exist anywhere other than in a computer has more fidelity than real life ? It's not always posible to meet up with people in real life. A lot of my friends moved overseas and I have neither the time nor inclination to be flying to sweden/the USA constantly. > That's your opinion, the fact that VR tanked hard seems to indicate most people don't agree This in no way changes the reality of their situation, in fact frankly, its irrelevant. Something being "nice" or "good" does not require it also have mass market appeal.
          • skeeter2020 1y ago
            >> I have neither the time nor inclination to be flying Everybody struggles with that trade-off; it would be nice if the pro virtual connected crowd acknowledged that a big part of the value of these relationships is that they aren't easy or casual. The infrequency and cost/effort involved is part of what inherently makes them special. I seem to be in the minority that would trade 100 cursory relationships for 1 deeply meaningful relationship.
            • theshackleford 1y ago
              > The infrequency and cost/effort involved is part of what inherently makes them special That may be true for you, but it’s not universal. Only being able to see some of my cloest friends every few years beyond a phone call or text doesn’t make the relationship any more “special”, it just makes it feel distant. VR doesn’t replace the real thing, but it does let me maintain closeness with people who aren’t geographically close anymore. I still fly out and see them, but between those moments, shared time in VR keeps the connection alive and meaningful. > I seem to be in the minority that would trade 100 cursory relationships for 1 deeply meaningful relationship. You’re not in the minority for wanting depth, but may be in a minority for assuming that depth can only come through scarcity and physical presence. Meaningful relationships are built on shared experience, and VR has given my friend group new ways to have those together despite no longer in fact, being together. Once a month, I hang out in VR with friends scattered across the world. We drink, laugh, gesture, watch movies and even move. We attended a virtual dance party a while back and it was a fantastic time. It’s presence, not proximity, that matters for us in the end and we have found VR quite useful for that.
    • kakacik 1y ago
      That's an extreme take, venting off some inner fears and frustrations? There are many use cases where this can add value. People these days live far from their families, what's wrong with connecting in a better/different way if desired? Not everybody wants or can stay with their families for whole life and that's fine, something about personal freedom and right to self-determination, desire for massive personal growth that exposure to different cultures invariably brings in, adventures and so on.
      • lm28469 1y ago
        > something about personal freedom and right to self-determination This has to be satire, god emperor Zuck and his megacorp Meta fighting for our personal freedoms and right to self-determination. You're already living in an alternate universe apparently
      • jmathai 1y ago
        I used to think this. But as I’ve aged and grown wiser, I think perhaps everyone should consider the large negative impacts of moving so far away from family. Technology can’t solve all the problems.
        • Klaster_1 1y ago
          If it's dangerous to stay in home country or there are almost no work opportunities, a lot of people choose to leave. Surely they'd appreciate seeing family and friends through a more rich medium than flat video. I'd certainly do.
          • jmathai 1y ago
            My parents immigrated from India to the US for those reasons. I understand what you're talking about and agree. That's not the type of reason I meant to allude to.
      • diamond559 1y ago
        It's adding another dimension to video calls, this isn't solving any major problems in the world. It won't bring in billions in revenue either.
    • mabedan 1y ago
      I agree with the general sentiment. I also think we forgot how to enjoy quality time together and these “solutions” will make matters worse. But in some scenarios, like what I described, which is just spending time together, it can help
    • foobarian 1y ago
      Yeah, pesky technology disconnecting us. Best to go back before cars where nobody could move anywhere. See you Sunday in church
      • apsurd 1y ago
        This doesn't make sense. It's the baby out with the bath water. Yes! actually cars did have a plausibly negative effect on connection. in the before times you couldn't travel far so you didn't. and you saw your family ever day of your life. It's not all it's cracked up to be sure, but we're talking logistics. Now with cars you can go wherever! And people move continents away and are told to make the family trip once a year at thanksgiving to do the family thing. Can you believe that with more optionality comes paradoxically fewer "chosen" options. See Netflix.
        • foobarian 1y ago
          I know right? It sure makes you wonder.
          • _ZeD_ 1y ago
            The thing is... are we happyer now?
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    • SoftTalker 1y ago
      Agree 100%. Sounds absolutely awful.
• skeezyjefferson 1y ago
  we are decades away. its why carmack quit to pursue other avenues. the chasm between the state of the art (gaming) and where VR currently is (essentially, mobile) is too big not seem shitty in comparison. The then-recent proliferation of Arm and SoC made the industry think it was possible, they even convinced Carmack, but the bandwidth just isnt there. The innovation required on the software side is massive - so theyll just wait for hardware to get better.
  • acka 1y ago
    Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there"? VR is more than just mobile devices; all currently available VR headsets can also do PC VR, whether via a wired DisplayPort link or a wired or wireless network connection. As I see it, the only absolute upper limit for VR is the resolution and frame rate of the VR headset displays, as well as the quality of the optical stack. Rendering of the graphics can be done by anything from a single high-end GPU in a PC up to a beefy server in the cloud—although in that case, of course, network latency and video compression will impact the experience.
    • dijit 1y ago
      realistically speaking; wired VR is much too much faff. unless it’s a niche thing (simulation, high end gaming), the future is undoubtedly free headsets like the Quest 3 and Apple Vision- for convenience in handling and setup, conformity and freedom of use.
    • skeezyjefferson 1y ago
      > Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there" VR needs to at least match the bleeding edge in graphics, which is desktop GPUs. Those desktop GPUs have large wattage and cooling demands. Therefore wireless VR headsets must use the mobile or laptop versions of those GPUs, which perform worse than the desktop equivalent. On top of this VR needs to draw the same scene twice (one for each eyeball). I cannot see how VR will ever overcome this with current hardware. They need to be able to put a desktop GPU in the wireless headset without needing to power it from AC, and thats just for starters because didnt Carmack say we need something like 240hz and 4k+ (for each eyeball) for indiscernible photo realism? Id say were maybe 10-20 years away from just having the GPU power to do this, let alone making software for it
• yibg 1y ago
  Agreed. Both my parents are getting older but live in different cities quite far apart from each other and me. Being able to virtually spend time together would be good if it’s realistic enough. During Covid I got into the habit of playing VR games with my father since I wasn’t able to physically visit and he was isolated. Not quite the same as being there physically of course but it helped a lot. Something both of us looked forward to.
• apwell23 1y ago
  parents of that age are usually averse to that kind of tech