3 ms·

Okay, I will freely admit to also lacking vision. What part of Zuckerberg's genius am I not seeing? Put another way: VR goggles have come and gone in gaming s

by alex_c 13y ago

Okay, I will freely admit to also lacking vision. What part of Zuckerberg's genius am I not seeing? Put another way: VR goggles have come and gone in gaming several times, failing each time due to a combination of price, poor experience, and general dorkiness (see also: Google Glass). The Oculus may be different, but the question remains: if VR goggles have failed in the past in the one area they were most likely to succeed, what is the magic sauce that will make them finally succeed in the mainstream? What is the path you see to VR becoming a widely accepted computer interaction method (which I'm not sure I see happening in general), how do you see that adoption happening without first being strongly established in gaming (the most likely early adopter market), and how do you see Facebook helping on that path?

hosh 13y ago
The Times article was interesting (http://time.com/39577/facebook-oculus-vr-inside-story/ http://time.com/39577/facebook-oculus-vr-inside-story/ I know, I know, paywall), and I observed some pretty nifty psychological dynamic. It was written by someone who wasn't much of a gamer, so I got a chance to see his epiphany through his writing. His mind was totally blown away. He kept talking about the aversion to wear something so ridiculous on there. He had never experienced what it felt like to step into another reality. He said that there "is no edge". The screens wrapped around the peripheral vision. The lag is below the threshold that many would get that sense of "this is not quite real". It goes with the "VR-induced existential crisis" that has been reported with the Rift, and not with any previous technology. You start to forget you're wearing something. I had not experienced that existential crisis when I used the Rift back in Oct, since my astigmatism distorted the viewscreens enough that I can see the edge. But more importantly, I have had a lot of psychedelic experiences and dream experiences where, now, shifting from one seemingly reality to another is not a big deal. The way these folks describe that existential crisis, about how there is no edge reminds me of what everyone says after coming down on their first trip. From my perspective, this technology has the potential to bring to the mainstream what meditators and psychonauts have known about for a long, long time. I've seen an interpretation of the Matrix movie, about how the movie was about a virtual reality that is real; but it misses the main point, that this reality that you are in right now is not as real as you think it is. You're making an interpretation based on sensory data. It is no wonder that this tech induces existential crises :-) And it is in that experience of the existential crisis that something wakes up in the experiencer. You ask some good, specific questions about adoption, and how Facebook will help with that. But that is also looking at it without a sense of how groundbreaking this tech is. It's the kind of tech that someone in the mainstream -- and not gamers who have these expectations in their head -- puts it on, tries it for the first time, and will get it. The game mechanics and the interactions are completely secondary to that experience of the existential crisis, and that alone, I think, will mean some form of the Rift technology, whether it is by FB or not, will emerge. It solves a problem people did not know they have, did not even realize they needed. The demand will be too great for there to be a vacuum.
- alex_c 13y ago
  I guess what I'm really missing is what is the killer app that will make VR deliver on that promise (if it's not games). I understand that it's a unique experience, but the mainstream will love it for what it lets them do, not for what it is. I can't realistically see some sort of next-gen Second Life hitting mainstream any time soon. I can't see it being used for work. So what's left? Movies? Interactive experiences? Games? None of these have much to do with Facebook. It's a cool display tech, it's not an experience in itself - that comes from the software. To me it feels the same as if Microsoft invested billions to buy a CRT monitor company back in the day - why would they? Edit: it is, of course, possible that I'm completely wrong on one or more of the above assumptions. That's why this is such an interesting discussion.
bane 13y ago
I had always thought of it as a nifty display that would make some games a little better (driving sims, flight sims) since you could better decouple where you're looking with where you're going than a mouse-keyboard combo. Plus since it's 3d, some of the issues with depth perception that exist in modern games would go away. 3d platformers become trivial since you can actually gauge where the next platform is and all the difficulties that led up to the revolution of Mario 64 (which, if you notice doesn't have very much classic platform jump puzzles). The real issue is a matter of control interfaces. Right now the norm for 3d games is keyboard and mouse, which is duplicated on consoles with dual analog sticks (and then maybe improved with the steam controller). One set of controls move your virtual "body", the other set controls your orientation (which feels like where your head is looking). The difficulty with VR is and always has been the necessary decoupling of your virtual body orientation from your head orientation. This is trivial in vehicle oriented games, your car or helicopter etc. is your "body" and the controls for orientation map nicely. But for games like fps's, which have planar movement (forward-backward, strafe left, right) you need a new orientation control now that the rift take over your viewpoint orientation. Put another way, to turn around in an FPS with a VR headset on, you need to turn your entire body around, which means you need to be on a swivel chair or standing (and then you need to figure out a way for your controllers to travel with you). The solution is obviously to maintain body movement with one control set (forward, backward, strafe), your mouse or other control set changes to control your body orientation and your headset handles viewpoint orientation -- so you can now sit stationary in front of your control interfaces. But many years of VR experience shows that this has the potential to introduce motion sickness in a huge percentage of participants. It's exactly like car sickness because your "body" is moving while your inner ears don't register anything. So there's lots and lots of interface problems to resolve. The headset is pretty much just the first step for workable, general purpose, VR. Which is why most VR systems are very specialized, with the control surfaces built to fit the one kind of experience they intend to support.
- hosh 13y ago
  Sure. Though given the explosion of other devices following the Rift kickstarter -- the omnidirectional treadmill, a new generation of the SixSense STEM system, the use of differential vibrator to simulate contact with a sword ... there's a lot of interest in getting this to work out. I'd be happy with just something where I can cover my entire peripheral vision :-D At one point, I had thought about getting three big LCD monitors to play Bioshock, just so I can get that immersion.

by alex_c 13y ago

hosh 13y ago

The Times article was interesting (http://time.com/39577/facebook-oculus-vr-inside-story/ http://time.com/39577/facebook-oculus-vr-inside-story/ I know, I know, paywall), and I observed some pretty nifty psychological dynamic. It was written by someone who wasn't much of a gamer, so I got a chance to see his epiphany through his writing. His mind was totally blown away. He kept talking about the aversion to wear something so ridiculous on there. He had never experienced what it felt like to step into another reality. He said that there "is no edge". The screens wrapped around the peripheral vision. The lag is below the threshold that many would get that sense of "this is not quite real". It goes with the "VR-induced existential crisis" that has been reported with the Rift, and not with any previous technology. You start to forget you're wearing something. I had not experienced that existential crisis when I used the Rift back in Oct, since my astigmatism distorted the viewscreens enough that I can see the edge. But more importantly, I have had a lot of psychedelic experiences and dream experiences where, now, shifting from one seemingly reality to another is not a big deal. The way these folks describe that existential crisis, about how there is no edge reminds me of what everyone says after coming down on their first trip. From my perspective, this technology has the potential to bring to the mainstream what meditators and psychonauts have known about for a long, long time. I've seen an interpretation of the Matrix movie, about how the movie was about a virtual reality that is real; but it misses the main point, that this reality that you are in right now is not as real as you think it is. You're making an interpretation based on sensory data. It is no wonder that this tech induces existential crises :-) And it is in that experience of the existential crisis that something wakes up in the experiencer. You ask some good, specific questions about adoption, and how Facebook will help with that. But that is also looking at it without a sense of how groundbreaking this tech is. It's the kind of tech that someone in the mainstream -- and not gamers who have these expectations in their head -- puts it on, tries it for the first time, and will get it. The game mechanics and the interactions are completely secondary to that experience of the existential crisis, and that alone, I think, will mean some form of the Rift technology, whether it is by FB or not, will emerge. It solves a problem people did not know they have, did not even realize they needed. The demand will be too great for there to be a vacuum.

alex_c 13y ago
I guess what I'm really missing is what is the killer app that will make VR deliver on that promise (if it's not games). I understand that it's a unique experience, but the mainstream will love it for what it lets them do, not for what it is. I can't realistically see some sort of next-gen Second Life hitting mainstream any time soon. I can't see it being used for work. So what's left? Movies? Interactive experiences? Games? None of these have much to do with Facebook. It's a cool display tech, it's not an experience in itself - that comes from the software. To me it feels the same as if Microsoft invested billions to buy a CRT monitor company back in the day - why would they? Edit: it is, of course, possible that I'm completely wrong on one or more of the above assumptions. That's why this is such an interesting discussion.

bane 13y ago

I had always thought of it as a nifty display that would make some games a little better (driving sims, flight sims) since you could better decouple where you're looking with where you're going than a mouse-keyboard combo. Plus since it's 3d, some of the issues with depth perception that exist in modern games would go away. 3d platformers become trivial since you can actually gauge where the next platform is and all the difficulties that led up to the revolution of Mario 64 (which, if you notice doesn't have very much classic platform jump puzzles). The real issue is a matter of control interfaces. Right now the norm for 3d games is keyboard and mouse, which is duplicated on consoles with dual analog sticks (and then maybe improved with the steam controller). One set of controls move your virtual "body", the other set controls your orientation (which feels like where your head is looking). The difficulty with VR is and always has been the necessary decoupling of your virtual body orientation from your head orientation. This is trivial in vehicle oriented games, your car or helicopter etc. is your "body" and the controls for orientation map nicely. But for games like fps's, which have planar movement (forward-backward, strafe left, right) you need a new orientation control now that the rift take over your viewpoint orientation. Put another way, to turn around in an FPS with a VR headset on, you need to turn your entire body around, which means you need to be on a swivel chair or standing (and then you need to figure out a way for your controllers to travel with you). The solution is obviously to maintain body movement with one control set (forward, backward, strafe), your mouse or other control set changes to control your body orientation and your headset handles viewpoint orientation -- so you can now sit stationary in front of your control interfaces. But many years of VR experience shows that this has the potential to introduce motion sickness in a huge percentage of participants. It's exactly like car sickness because your "body" is moving while your inner ears don't register anything. So there's lots and lots of interface problems to resolve. The headset is pretty much just the first step for workable, general purpose, VR. Which is why most VR systems are very specialized, with the control surfaces built to fit the one kind of experience they intend to support.

hosh 13y ago
Sure. Though given the explosion of other devices following the Rift kickstarter -- the omnidirectional treadmill, a new generation of the SixSense STEM system, the use of differential vibrator to simulate contact with a sword ... there's a lot of interest in getting this to work out. I'd be happy with just something where I can cover my entire peripheral vision :-D At one point, I had thought about getting three big LCD monitors to play Bioshock, just so I can get that immersion.