Ken and Roberta Williams Working on Colossal Cave Adventure Remake for VR and PC(gameworldobserver.com)
gameworldobserver.com
Ken and Roberta Williams Working on Colossal Cave Adventure Remake for VR and PC
https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/03/22/ken-and-roberta-williams-working-on-colossal-cave-adventure-remake-for-vr-and-pc
193 comments
50 Years of Text Games did a good piece on it: https://if50.substack.com/p/1976-adventure
Very cool.
I enjoyed the original game.
Imagine what they’ll do with the 3D version…
Playing the game as reading a choose your own adventure book outside of a Parisian cafe = Done
Playing a PC like version while sitting in a grungy university library basement in front of a Commodore 64 = Done
Same experience but in three dimensions = Mindblowing
I enjoyed the original game.
Imagine what they’ll do with the 3D version…
Playing the game as reading a choose your own adventure book outside of a Parisian cafe = Done
Playing a PC like version while sitting in a grungy university library basement in front of a Commodore 64 = Done
Same experience but in three dimensions = Mindblowing
[deleted]
I discovered ADVENT because it was bundled in with DSLinux [0], the Linux distribution for the Nintendo DS. Poking through /bin, I thought it was going to be a little CLI advent calendar---imagine my surprise when the console started telling me a story! There was a long period in grade school where I was kinda obsessed with the game and its derivatives, especially Mike Arnautov's 770-point expansion [1]. I remember pulling apart his A-code sources (a custom DSL for implementing his versions of the game) to make my own additions to the world. From there I discovered the Inform 7 authoring system [2] and the wider text adventure/interactive fiction ecosystem.
I came into the whole thing comparatively late (sometime in the late 2000s, I guess?), but Colossal Cave is still a huge part of my childhood. Expansions, ports, remixes, and re-imaginings are already a tradition for the game: even the version most people are familiar with is Don Woods's expansion of Will Crowther's original code. I'm psyched to see the Williams's contribution to the canon!
[0] https://dslinux.org/
[1] https://mipmip.org/downloads.html
[2] http://inform7.com/
I came into the whole thing comparatively late (sometime in the late 2000s, I guess?), but Colossal Cave is still a huge part of my childhood. Expansions, ports, remixes, and re-imaginings are already a tradition for the game: even the version most people are familiar with is Don Woods's expansion of Will Crowther's original code. I'm psyched to see the Williams's contribution to the canon!
[0] https://dslinux.org/
[1] https://mipmip.org/downloads.html
[2] http://inform7.com/
Inform6 it's better if you like easy OOP and structured code.
Get Inform Begginers Guide and Inform's Designers Manual. Both are free PDF files.
You'll need Inform6 and the Inform 6 library (easy).
Get Inform Begginers Guide and Inform's Designers Manual. Both are free PDF files.
You'll need Inform6 and the Inform 6 library (easy).
Excited to see how this pans out. Myst and Riven (and to an extent, "7th Guest" and Gadget) 3D-ified text adventures and were very successful. Riven III was node based but provided full 360 degree viewing, but the game sucked. With the Williams' at the helm I don't think they'll let a substandard game through. Although I'm curious to see if they can add any more depth to it than Robyn and Rand Miller could squeeze out of the engine. IMHO I don't think there has been a single novel advancement to 3D games in decades, as I don't consider goggles to be novel.
I had already played all the Infocom games before discovering Crowther and Woods' Adventure (remember this was pre-internet). It came in the box with a Mockingboard speech synthesizer I got for my Apple in the early 80's. The novelty was that the mocking board text-to-speeched the game, which was neat but unbearable. Not to mention it didn't know how to say "xyzzy" correctly.
I had already played all the Infocom games before discovering Crowther and Woods' Adventure (remember this was pre-internet). It came in the box with a Mockingboard speech synthesizer I got for my Apple in the early 80's. The novelty was that the mocking board text-to-speeched the game, which was neat but unbearable. Not to mention it didn't know how to say "xyzzy" correctly.
> With the Williams' at the helm I don't think they'll let a substandard game through.
Why not? They've published lots of substandard games in the past.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3n8ea/how-sierra-and-a-disg...
Why not? They've published lots of substandard games in the past.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3n8ea/how-sierra-and-a-disg...
Open Season, despite how regressive it may appear today, sold north of 1 million copies and received extremely warm reviews from outlets such as CGM[1]. From the Wiki summary of said review:
A longer review in March 1994 stated that the game had succeeded "at so many levels", that its realism and "seemingly endless amounts of" police procedure offered "larger implications about our society and its struggle against the drug machine". The reviewer noted that treating NPCs with the same "lack of consideration" players do so in other games "seems incredibly damning—and heartrending—because it's true to life. We treat each other, the game implies, in our attempts merely to cope with the problems with which we are faced, like NPCs". The magazine concluded that "Open Season tells that story magnificently".
1. https://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1994&pub=...
A longer review in March 1994 stated that the game had succeeded "at so many levels", that its realism and "seemingly endless amounts of" police procedure offered "larger implications about our society and its struggle against the drug machine". The reviewer noted that treating NPCs with the same "lack of consideration" players do so in other games "seems incredibly damning—and heartrending—because it's true to life. We treat each other, the game implies, in our attempts merely to cope with the problems with which we are faced, like NPCs". The magazine concluded that "Open Season tells that story magnificently".
1. https://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1994&pub=...
Have you played the 3D Myst remake? I've played it both on pancake monitor and in the Quest.
On PC, I found it was very easy, though that might have been because I was 20 years older than the first time I played it.
It's a delightful experience in the Quest. Some of the difficulty comes back due to not having any ability to take notes. But being able to walk around and see this world "for real" that I've already spent so much time in was giddying.
On PC, I found it was very easy, though that might have been because I was 20 years older than the first time I played it.
It's a delightful experience in the Quest. Some of the difficulty comes back due to not having any ability to take notes. But being able to walk around and see this world "for real" that I've already spent so much time in was giddying.
The VR headset really simplifies the Channelwood first puzzle, where half the challenge, I'm sorry to say, was understanding if you were coming or going as you moved around the node network of walkways and shunted water back and forth.
... but simplifies in a good way. I'm not a fan of the sort of artificial challenge that a viewpoint more limited than my avatar should have in a game induces, and I considered that complexity in the original more bug than feature.
... but simplifies in a good way. I'm not a fan of the sort of artificial challenge that a viewpoint more limited than my avatar should have in a game induces, and I considered that complexity in the original more bug than feature.
The remake was excellent. Having played it already I wasn't really expecting to be wowed again, but it really was a great experience once more.
Have you played Obduction? If not I can highly recommend it. I'm also looking forward to their new game Firmament. I'm so glad Cyan is back making games.
Have you played Obduction? If not I can highly recommend it. I'm also looking forward to their new game Firmament. I'm so glad Cyan is back making games.
I remember reading something about it back when it came out (RealMyst I think?) but didn't get into it. I think a non-node based Myst would be difficult since there would be so many places to look for clues. In node-based Myst, you were forced to scrutinize a very small field of view. Myst III solved the 360-degree FOV by having the clues be quite obvious, as it is harder to "hide a lever" if the user can look anywhere.
I was excited for Return to Zork's attempt at rendering, but was that ever a bummer ("Want some rye?" ...wtf?), as was Inquisitor.
I was excited for Return to Zork's attempt at rendering, but was that ever a bummer ("Want some rye?" ...wtf?), as was Inquisitor.
Yes, RealMyst, name escaped me for a moment.
Like I said, I found RealMyst easier than original Myst. Being able to move in 3D space made levers more obvious, not hidden in background detail. I also tended to get lost in original Myst and had difficulty getting back and forth between puzzles while backtracking (especially a problem in Riven). RealMyst with free movement taps into my spatial awareness much better.
Like I said, I found RealMyst easier than original Myst. Being able to move in 3D space made levers more obvious, not hidden in background detail. I also tended to get lost in original Myst and had difficulty getting back and forth between puzzles while backtracking (especially a problem in Riven). RealMyst with free movement taps into my spatial awareness much better.
I think the game you're referring to (since you say you played it recently, and on Quest) is just called, slightly confusingly, "Myst": https://store.steampowered.com/app/1255560/Myst/ (link to Steam, but I think it's available on all current-gen consoles too)
'realMyst' is an earlier 3D remake: https://store.steampowered.com/app/244430/realMyst_Masterpie...
'realMyst' is an earlier 3D remake: https://store.steampowered.com/app/244430/realMyst_Masterpie...
I didn't know there were two. Weird. Even weirder that Myst is selling for $29.99 and realMyst, 17.99, 25 years later.
The link for "Myst" on Steam that
jrmg gave is to a more modern 3D remake than realMyst. This remake can also be played in VR.
Indeed: Cyan created a whole lot of variants/remakes of Myst.
Indeed: Cyan created a whole lot of variants/remakes of Myst.
I played both. RealMyst about 5 years ago, Myst for Quest last year.
...And original Myst probably 25 years ago.
...And original Myst probably 25 years ago.
What's a pancake monitor?
Just a regular monitor.
It's an idiom in the VR community, especially since a lot of games support both VR and non-VR. But always saying "non-VR-mode" or "normal mode" (which mode is 'normal'? VR or not?) is kind of awkward.
It started as "flat", people started joking about it being "pancake" and it just stuck.
It's an idiom in the VR community, especially since a lot of games support both VR and non-VR. But always saying "non-VR-mode" or "normal mode" (which mode is 'normal'? VR or not?) is kind of awkward.
It started as "flat", people started joking about it being "pancake" and it just stuck.
I googled it because I was confused as well, and it led me to https://www.sironacc.com/product/alarm-ratemeter-with-pancak... , which didn't make a lot of sense.
Pancake X has always meant to me the first version of X that turns out not well done before you do it right the second time. Like how your first pancake is always a little off because the griddle isn't heated right.
Huh I've never heard "pancake" used that way before - though yeah the analogy is common enough. In this context though it's certainly as I described.
Sure, if you still need to git gud at cooking.
I feel like git gud needs to be a real git command. It's what you do to commit a patch to egregiously bad code. Like if someone git guds you some code your wrote, just hang your head in shame.
Is the usage "pancake lens" for some type of lenses in photography a similar usage or does it imply something different.
So, a retronym kind of like "snail mail"?
Yeah that's a good comparison.
Or "dead tree"
Slang for playing a 2D mode versus VR mode on PC.
It's not 2D mode, though. That's just bog-standard 3D (unless there's some software that can do 2D-in-VR and has only 2D and VR modes -- is there any? Something like Age of Empires VR Edition?)
> It's not 2D mode, though. That's just bog-standard 3D
But without the depth perception that VR gives you. That's why it's "flat."
But without the depth perception that VR gives you. That's why it's "flat."
Yes, it's always been that way.
Well, not really, because there are 3D displays with shutter glasses and lenticular displays that can show graphics with depth without the use of goggles or glasses. The graphics may be rendered in 3D, but the monitor itself, the thing I spoke of, only shows 2D images.
[deleted]
Want to hear Roberta talk about her experience playing Adventure for the first time? We interviewed her in our podcast about this very topic: https://art19.com/shows/the-madecast/episodes/a9172691-a4fb-...
"Roberta and I will be on Twitch tomorrow to talk about a new game we're working on. Our interview will be at 3pm Pacific time."
https://twitter.com/caboken/status/1506390567197896705
https://twitter.com/caboken/status/1506390567197896705
Because this is approaching the web horizon, for those who don't know, Ken and Roberta Williams are pretty close to the SoCal version of Shigeru Miyamoto.
They founded Sierra On-Line in 1979, which published pretty stellar titles until its sale in 1996 (and subsequent mismanagement and outright corporate fraud by the acquirer).
Here are a list of the things they published, among which some were developed inhouse, among which some were developed by one or both of the Williams.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sierra_Entertainment...
PS: And on a personal note, I can't imagine my teenage years without Sierra. From King's Quest to Dynamix to Valve's Half-Life to Relic's Homeworld to Gearbox's initial Half-Life console ports, they survived far longer in an industry where so many don't... while putting out amazing stuff over decades.
Or to put it another way, when they first started writing and publishing games, there was no Internet (in the modern sense) and Intel had just released the 10 MHz 8086 built on a 3000 nm (3 µm) node.
By the time they left the company, the web and JavaScript existed, and Intel had just released the Klamath 300 MHz Pentium II on a 350 nm node.
Crazy times.
They founded Sierra On-Line in 1979, which published pretty stellar titles until its sale in 1996 (and subsequent mismanagement and outright corporate fraud by the acquirer).
Here are a list of the things they published, among which some were developed inhouse, among which some were developed by one or both of the Williams.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sierra_Entertainment...
PS: And on a personal note, I can't imagine my teenage years without Sierra. From King's Quest to Dynamix to Valve's Half-Life to Relic's Homeworld to Gearbox's initial Half-Life console ports, they survived far longer in an industry where so many don't... while putting out amazing stuff over decades.
Or to put it another way, when they first started writing and publishing games, there was no Internet (in the modern sense) and Intel had just released the 10 MHz 8086 built on a 3000 nm (3 µm) node.
By the time they left the company, the web and JavaScript existed, and Intel had just released the Klamath 300 MHz Pentium II on a 350 nm node.
Crazy times.
Hacking King's Quest on my middle school's Apple IIe was one of the ways I learned to code.
Did they really have much of a role to play for Half-Life or Homeworld? By that point they were just a publisher.
Supposedly they chose to publish Half-Life because they regretted turning down the chance to buy id, and thought Valve seemed like a good company. So I think they deserve some credit for recognizing talent.
They also had a couple of really cool Nordhavn motor yachts which Ken has blogged about extensively, including crossing the Atlantic in their first one.
[deleted]
The Internet Archive has many historic games (and some of its other vintage software) available to run in various emulators in-browser. For example, a 1987 release of King's Quest in (F1 for help; note: sound!):
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Kings_Quest_I_-_Quest_for_...
Discussion of how it's done with DOSBox compiled to Wasm:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10977424
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Kings_Quest_I_-_Quest_for_...
Discussion of how it's done with DOSBox compiled to Wasm:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10977424
Plenty are on GOG, too.
> interesting characters
I played ADVENT for many hours, back in the day (on the boss's time). The only characters I remember are a dwarf, a pirate, a dragon, a bird, a giant, and a giant clam. OK, I suppose the bear and the troll might count as characters.
None of these count as "interesting characters" - a chap that always says "Fee Fi Fo Foo" isn't particularly interesting, and none of the others has any dialogue.
I played ADVENT for many hours, back in the day (on the boss's time). The only characters I remember are a dwarf, a pirate, a dragon, a bird, a giant, and a giant clam. OK, I suppose the bear and the troll might count as characters.
None of these count as "interesting characters" - a chap that always says "Fee Fi Fo Foo" isn't particularly interesting, and none of the others has any dialogue.
I first played Colossal Cave adventure on a terminal in my mom's office in the late 70s. She was a FORTRAN programmer for a defense contractor, and would take me into the office on school holidays when she could not find daycare. She'd plunk me down in front of the terminal, and I'd play text based games all day.
I think this is what got me into computers and is basically responsible for me choosing my major and later my career..
I think this is what got me into computers and is basically responsible for me choosing my major and later my career..
You can re-live your childhood online:
https://grack.com/demos/adventure/
It's the 1984 variant version[1] but close enough. It's also retro styled as well!
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure#Later_...
https://grack.com/demos/adventure/
It's the 1984 variant version[1] but close enough. It's also retro styled as well!
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure#Later_...
That's my project! :)
Glad someone posted it. The source is available here: https://github.com/mmastrac/adventure
Glad someone posted it. The source is available here: https://github.com/mmastrac/adventure
Same here, my mom worked at the local community college. The other detail was the computer had no display, only a line printer. Spewed out quite a stack of paper by the end of a day playing Adventure.
In the late 80s, I was in a middle school Unix class. My friends and I spent most of the time playing MUDs over telnet. They're all in tech jobs today.
See - that's what I'm waiting to come to VR, the MUDs.
I want to strap on my VR helmet and be in a dark bedroom with only the glow of the CRT for light at 3 AM in the morning MUDing with someone on the otherside of the world who I'd been trying to set up a scene with for weeks for IC reasons.
I want to strap on my VR helmet and be in a dark bedroom with only the glow of the CRT for light at 3 AM in the morning MUDing with someone on the otherside of the world who I'd been trying to set up a scene with for weeks for IC reasons.
MUD = Multi-User Dungeon
IC = ?
IC = ?
MUD is a general term for text-based roleplaying game - Multi-User Dungeon has always struck me as an unhelpful definition since it applies a lot more focus on mechanical components than most MUDs actually have.
IC is in character.
I can explain this better with an example I believe. While playing as a jeweler in Minas Tirith in a MUD I had need to consult with an armorer PC to receive some in-character training on basic armorsmithing as Gondor was, at that point in the plot, in desperate need of arms and armor quickly so all of the PCs who had any sort of forge capable of metalwork were trying to make an effort of supporting the war effort. While there were lots of weaponsmiths in EST the one armorer I knew well and enjoyed playing with happened to be a Chinese player who occasionally overlapped with EST. I ended up staying up late one Saturday night and having a very fun scene with them, but there were serious logistical complications and a bunch of DMs sent back and forth to make sure we were both available.
IC is in character.
I can explain this better with an example I believe. While playing as a jeweler in Minas Tirith in a MUD I had need to consult with an armorer PC to receive some in-character training on basic armorsmithing as Gondor was, at that point in the plot, in desperate need of arms and armor quickly so all of the PCs who had any sort of forge capable of metalwork were trying to make an effort of supporting the war effort. While there were lots of weaponsmiths in EST the one armorer I knew well and enjoyed playing with happened to be a Chinese player who occasionally overlapped with EST. I ended up staying up late one Saturday night and having a very fun scene with them, but there were serious logistical complications and a bunch of DMs sent back and forth to make sure we were both available.
It's very interesting, did you and your mom ever talk about your respective programming career? How was it like when she was a programmer?
Sadly, she was a heavy smoker, and passed away from lung cancer when I was still very early in my career.
The one time we "worked together" was when I got a summer internship at another defense contractor, programming in FORTRAN 77 on VAX/VMS. Coming from C & UNIX at the university, VMS and FORTRAN was quite different. She taught me the basics of the language over a weekend. I never really adjusted to the column layout stuff.
I recall we would use used punch cards for scrap paper when I was a kid. Pretty much every note or list she wrote was on a used punch card.
The one time we "worked together" was when I got a summer internship at another defense contractor, programming in FORTRAN 77 on VAX/VMS. Coming from C & UNIX at the university, VMS and FORTRAN was quite different. She taught me the basics of the language over a weekend. I never really adjusted to the column layout stuff.
I recall we would use used punch cards for scrap paper when I was a kid. Pretty much every note or list she wrote was on a used punch card.
1976 I was part of a US National Science Foundation project for high school students. Someone had a teletype on 300 baud modem in the house we stayed at, and played it there. Good times, and also highly formative.
[deleted]
I'll be interested in this remake when it's done. I don't know what it is about Colossal Cave, but the descriptions of the caves were pure magic to me when I played this many years ago. Perhaps it comes from the real experience caving of the authors. I also loved the Magnetic Scrolls games from the end of the 80s, like Jinxter - they had some great humour (but difficult puzzles).
Is it just me or is there a wider belief that VR will never be anything more than a niche? Facebook aka Meta has bet its future on this and I think it's a mistake.
When people think of VR they think of the Matrix but that will never be because of the laws of physics. Latency is the big problem (unless such a network is very localized in the real world) but visually speaking, black is a problem. Black is a colour on computer displays but in the real world it's the absence of light. Another big visual problem: focus.
Yet another problem: controls. In the real world you just think and act. In VR you have these controls to direct movement. That's never going to feel natural so you're pretty much predicated on a pure brain-computer interface for it to feel realistic.
There's no killer app for VR (optimists will add "yet") and no hint of what one might be.
Part of what made these old adventure games so compelling (IMHO) was the format: text. Games like Myst added images and can have an appeal all of their own but it's different to the text adventure game. The same goes for video (meaning rendered 3D graphics). I have doubts that this magic (which has a heavy dose of nostalgia) will translate to VR.
For me the Infocom games (Zork in particular) will always be remembered fondly but part of the magic was the time and you can never step in the same river twice.
When people think of VR they think of the Matrix but that will never be because of the laws of physics. Latency is the big problem (unless such a network is very localized in the real world) but visually speaking, black is a problem. Black is a colour on computer displays but in the real world it's the absence of light. Another big visual problem: focus.
Yet another problem: controls. In the real world you just think and act. In VR you have these controls to direct movement. That's never going to feel natural so you're pretty much predicated on a pure brain-computer interface for it to feel realistic.
There's no killer app for VR (optimists will add "yet") and no hint of what one might be.
Part of what made these old adventure games so compelling (IMHO) was the format: text. Games like Myst added images and can have an appeal all of their own but it's different to the text adventure game. The same goes for video (meaning rendered 3D graphics). I have doubts that this magic (which has a heavy dose of nostalgia) will translate to VR.
For me the Infocom games (Zork in particular) will always be remembered fondly but part of the magic was the time and you can never step in the same river twice.
How much VR have you tried? After just 10 minutes of Beat Saber I was left with an odd feeling after taking off the headset. I think your standards for VR are unreasonably high, considering how utterly addicting it's likely to be to huge numbers of people if it just gets fairly engaging.
Put another way, both Roblox and Minecraft look like crap, and are largely graphics we could have replicated on the the Playstation 1 or N64, but Microsoft bought Minecraft for $2.5 billion, and Roblox has a valuation in the tens of billions. The threshold between "there's no killer app" and "yet" is razor thin.
Put another way, both Roblox and Minecraft look like crap, and are largely graphics we could have replicated on the the Playstation 1 or N64, but Microsoft bought Minecraft for $2.5 billion, and Roblox has a valuation in the tens of billions. The threshold between "there's no killer app" and "yet" is razor thin.
Beat Saber is the only reason I still have a VR rig and I still feel like I agree with parent. It is a solid rhythm game and decent upper body workout on higher difficulties, but if I hadn't already bought a friend's used Oculus I don't think it would convince me.
A big part of it is how damned inconvenient the whole thing is. I need all these long high-quality USB3 cables for the headset and sensors, a beefy video card, and most importantly an otherwise empty room to play it in safely.
The Quest, the most convenient system, only kinda deals with the first two problems and does nothing for the third.
I don't know about you guys, but I can't just have the servants clear out the tertiary ball room whenever I want to play a game. In the normal sized bedroom I've allocated for VR I have managed to slam into walls on more than one occasion when moving quickly trying to hit something or dodge something.
I would definitely say the whole thing is still pretty far into "gimmick" territory for the vast majority of gamers.
A big part of it is how damned inconvenient the whole thing is. I need all these long high-quality USB3 cables for the headset and sensors, a beefy video card, and most importantly an otherwise empty room to play it in safely.
The Quest, the most convenient system, only kinda deals with the first two problems and does nothing for the third.
I don't know about you guys, but I can't just have the servants clear out the tertiary ball room whenever I want to play a game. In the normal sized bedroom I've allocated for VR I have managed to slam into walls on more than one occasion when moving quickly trying to hit something or dodge something.
I would definitely say the whole thing is still pretty far into "gimmick" territory for the vast majority of gamers.
There are some "solutions" to the third, but they're all just workarounds to what is a very hard limitation that I don't think we should expect to ever be fixed. I think games just need to design around it.
Putting a small mat on the ground gives you a reference to where you are in your room, if need be maybe you just make sure you never stray from the mat. One of the reasons I got an "inside out" style headset is so I don't have to worry about all the cables and base stations, with the tradeoff that the hand tracking isn't quite as robust. Much less faffing about.
Putting a small mat on the ground gives you a reference to where you are in your room, if need be maybe you just make sure you never stray from the mat. One of the reasons I got an "inside out" style headset is so I don't have to worry about all the cables and base stations, with the tradeoff that the hand tracking isn't quite as robust. Much less faffing about.
I even managed to slam into a wall in a VR demo, the guy who was my "guardian angel" wasn't paying enough attention..
When you think about all the things which can be on the ground in a typical house..
> After just 10 minutes of Beat Saber I was left with an odd feeling after taking off the headset.
Beatsaber is like the Tetris of VR. It won't change anything, while it's a good game and it's addictive.
Beatsaber is like the Tetris of VR. It won't change anything, while it's a good game and it's addictive.
I've tried an Oculus Go for maybe 12 hours? Some of it was interesting but it always felt gimmicky to me. A bit like 3D in movie theaters. Like it was all so... forced.
The Oculus Go was a 3DOF headset. That's basically a glorified 360 movie viewer.
6DOF is the absolute bare minimum and I feel we should have reserved the term "VR" specifically for 6DOF devices. The immersion just isn't there without positional tracking.
And positional tracking with the controllers is another huge factor. So - I would argue you've never really tried "real VR".
6DOF is the absolute bare minimum and I feel we should have reserved the term "VR" specifically for 6DOF devices. The immersion just isn't there without positional tracking.
And positional tracking with the controllers is another huge factor. So - I would argue you've never really tried "real VR".
People don't realize it, but without positional tracking, even seated experiences feel very "off."
Consider where the joint is that moves your head. When you rotate your head, you're not rotating through an axis in the center of your head; you're pivoting a spline describing your neck. That's a very complicated motion and it can't be faked by just turning the view without moving the view also (and if you try to simulate it without full 6DOF tracking, you'll have to model the user's neck length and curvature profile, and that'll get very messy, with disorientation consequences when you get it wrong).
Consider where the joint is that moves your head. When you rotate your head, you're not rotating through an axis in the center of your head; you're pivoting a spline describing your neck. That's a very complicated motion and it can't be faked by just turning the view without moving the view also (and if you try to simulate it without full 6DOF tracking, you'll have to model the user's neck length and curvature profile, and that'll get very messy, with disorientation consequences when you get it wrong).
With that said, head tracking just on it's own adds a new dimension to the experience of a first person game. Sitting in the cockpit of a spaceship and moving around with the mouse feels like a game, but being able to tilt your head around, move it side to side and experience the parallax of all the different elements moving around eachother is astonishing.
Even if you're one of the types that can't quite get into VR or wearing the headset, I'd recommend trying out some TrackIR, or for free you can try Opentrack + AI track and just use your standard webcam.
Even if you're one of the types that can't quite get into VR or wearing the headset, I'd recommend trying out some TrackIR, or for free you can try Opentrack + AI track and just use your standard webcam.
Actually 3dof headsets did try and compensate for this by modelling the human neck. But that still ignores a lot of the range of movement that one makes even when seated and relatively still.
I have a VR headset. What I don't have in my apartment is a lot of empty space, nor do i want to move furniture around to create a play area whenever i want to do something in "real VR."
Everyone dismisses 3DOF VR but that is realistically the only form of VR that is widely consumer friendly. If I can't stand or sit more or less in a single place, I'm simply not going to use an app despite having a headset that supports it.
Everyone dismisses 3DOF VR but that is realistically the only form of VR that is widely consumer friendly. If I can't stand or sit more or less in a single place, I'm simply not going to use an app despite having a headset that supports it.
You're conflating "3dof" with seated.
I'm similarly space constrained a lot of the time but 6dof is still my bare minimum requirement.
Head movements of 1 or 2 cm matter for immersion. It's not about running round a large play space.
Seated VR needs to be 6dof as well
I'm similarly space constrained a lot of the time but 6dof is still my bare minimum requirement.
Head movements of 1 or 2 cm matter for immersion. It's not about running round a large play space.
Seated VR needs to be 6dof as well
Isn't the extra complexity needed for 6dof what makes headsets so expensive? Is it even worth it for 1 or 2cm?
> Is it even worth it for 1 or 2cm?
Yes. It's worth it. It's such a significant difference that I just have zero interest in 3dof headsets for anything other than 360 video (and I've got very little interest in 360 video)
With 3dof, the minute you lean or move your head by a small amount, the whole illusion is shattered and you are reminded that you're just watching a stereoscopic skydome that's glued to your head. It's also why lag and low refresh rates are an immersion killer for 6dof.
Plus - even seated experiences allow a lot of mobility. You can lean towards things to examine them closer. You can duck to either side. "Seated" doesn't mean "immobile apart from your head"
Yes. It's worth it. It's such a significant difference that I just have zero interest in 3dof headsets for anything other than 360 video (and I've got very little interest in 360 video)
With 3dof, the minute you lean or move your head by a small amount, the whole illusion is shattered and you are reminded that you're just watching a stereoscopic skydome that's glued to your head. It's also why lag and low refresh rates are an immersion killer for 6dof.
Plus - even seated experiences allow a lot of mobility. You can lean towards things to examine them closer. You can duck to either side. "Seated" doesn't mean "immobile apart from your head"
I wonder if susceptibility to accept VR as more "reality" than "virtual" is something that varies per person. All of the VR I've tried has felt completely unforced. I accepted it all immediately.
The VR folks are starting to sound like the Year of the Linux Desktop folks.
Y'all standing at the station for a train that might never come
Y'all standing at the station for a train that might never come
The train already came. We're already on it. We're having fun and getting work done.
And I'm not even going to say "you missed it". You can get on the train any time you want. It's here and it's pretty cool.
And I'm not even going to say "you missed it". You can get on the train any time you want. It's here and it's pretty cool.
With the exception of Half-Life Alyx, everything I've seen on VR has been either a gimmick or "meh"
And don't even get me started on how awful virtual workspaces are.
And don't even get me started on how awful virtual workspaces are.
Not liking it is pretty different to it not being here though. I think people expect VR to be something more than it is, but it is just some sensors tracking your body and a screen strapped to your face. That enables some unique experiences, but it's no braindance.
It would be nice if it would stop being sold to us as a braindance
Half life alyx is extremely gimmicky if you stop to observe how it works. Enemies are stupidly generous in telegraphing their moves. The game, correctly, expects you to be very slow and unable to integrate moving and shooting.
Boneworks is a game that does the opposite, but is similarly disappointing. You get fast walking speed with the analog stick allowing you to be very agile. Presuming you don’t get nausea… this is by far your most useful asset in a fight. The real world movement is basically nothing and a lot of the fighting is better done as a sort of jousting with your weapon held in front of you and your move stick held forward.
Boneworks is a game that does the opposite, but is similarly disappointing. You get fast walking speed with the analog stick allowing you to be very agile. Presuming you don’t get nausea… this is by far your most useful asset in a fight. The real world movement is basically nothing and a lot of the fighting is better done as a sort of jousting with your weapon held in front of you and your move stick held forward.
Everyone loves to bring up beatsaber when discussing the future of VR but beat saber is so carefully designed to avoid its pitfalls. You don't move more than a few feet irl or in game. Everything you need to see is in front of you. You have infinitely light weapons with no resistance.
Graphics is not the problem. It's the interface.
Graphics is not the problem. It's the interface.
That's how all 80s and 90s games were carefully designed with limited memory/cpu. They designed to avoid those limitations by limiting play or encouraging other actions.
Memory limits weren't fundamental problems with video games. They were temporary limitations.
My point is not that you cannot make fun games in VR. you can, and beat saber is very fun. But you can only have so many beat sabers.
My point is not that you cannot make fun games in VR. you can, and beat saber is very fun. But you can only have so many beat sabers.
I love beat saber, but I feel like it is VR at the space invaders stage. I think in the next ten years we will see the platformer and beat-um-up stage games; I just don't have the imagination to predict what they will be like.
Memory limits are still problems on my c64 but clever people came up with ways around like[geos windows before windows) or There is a guy who appears on here powering his website off a c64.
Whatever limits vr creates there are people who can work within those limits.
The problem is so fewer developers are making indie vr because it is locked down and expensive.
Whatever limits vr creates there are people who can work within those limits.
The problem is so fewer developers are making indie vr because it is locked down and expensive.
One of the giant limitations for VR is physical playing space. Memory and processor can always get better, faster, and cheaper, but I don't see how available playing space is going to improve in the future.
I don't think I'd really want to be running around my living room anyway, too dangerous. I'd rather see improvements made to controller locomotion in VR. Even if all experiences were seated I think it's still a huge canvas, beatsaber is a very basic game even in respect to other VR games.
It definitely beats me sitting in this char for playing space. I had a Quest 2 and I can say the playable space is pretty large, more than enough, and I walked away from the experience feeling that it was absolutely profound. I haven't had such a game changing experience since I bought my Diamond Monster 3D (3dfx Vooodoo 4MB).
It's not going to be for everyone. Games today aren't either. Some people just don't like gaming, reading, VR, sitcoms, etc.
It's not going to be for everyone. Games today aren't either. Some people just don't like gaming, reading, VR, sitcoms, etc.
What about Elite Dangerous ? Anyone played ? I heard it was real good on VR.
As a seated experience (in a spaceship, where my Star Trek fantasy training has taught my brain, oddly enough, that motion in space should involve no feeling the acceleration forces), it's really quite good. Night-and-day from the same experience mouse-and-keyboard or HOTAS.
The game itself, sadly, doesn't hold my attention for very long, but I think the VR UI is nearly ideal for it.
The game itself, sadly, doesn't hold my attention for very long, but I think the VR UI is nearly ideal for it.
Elite Dangerous VR almost requires something like Voice Attack but if you set it up like that I think it's immensely immersive - I've always had issues with the gameplay itself though so it's still not completely my cup of tea. I personally want a space freighter game where I'm drifting between breaktaking vistas - or an exploration game where I'm probing the edges of civilization - Elite Dangerous allows both of these to an extent, but it's strongly focused on dog fighting mechanically.
Haven't played it but at a glance its a cockpit game for VR. So again, no moving, no local physics interactions that the players hands have to deal with. Looks pretty cool.
But when people think vr, and they look at the movies, they're thinking about games where you are a person in a place that feels alive.
But when people think vr, and they look at the movies, they're thinking about games where you are a person in a place that feels alive.
Then they're kind of mistaken I guess. Even in something like Ready Player One, that is simply not how the VR tech would actually work. Haptic suits, running treadmills, full body tracking and VR headsets all exist. They do not feel the way they're portrayed in scifi, and never will.
Funny enough, they just added a whole bunch of FPS style content, and it is locked out of VR last I checked.
> You don't move more than a few feet irl or in game.
Maybe that's the real future of VR? I enjoyed Half Life Alyx as it was a really polished feeling VR shooter but trying to move in that game was always a janky experience - I think VR exploration when things are peaceful is interesting and fun but, since you're never going to be able to freely navigate a scene by walking around alone it'll always be quite immersion breaking. I'd be more excited to see something like a mech warrior game with a navigable bridge than a COD style shooter - if you design the setting around having a fixed limited environment you can freely move around in in VR that you then move around in a larger environment... I think that's the sweet spot for VR for the foreseeable future.
Maybe that's the real future of VR? I enjoyed Half Life Alyx as it was a really polished feeling VR shooter but trying to move in that game was always a janky experience - I think VR exploration when things are peaceful is interesting and fun but, since you're never going to be able to freely navigate a scene by walking around alone it'll always be quite immersion breaking. I'd be more excited to see something like a mech warrior game with a navigable bridge than a COD style shooter - if you design the setting around having a fixed limited environment you can freely move around in in VR that you then move around in a larger environment... I think that's the sweet spot for VR for the foreseeable future.
Everything is designed around its own pitfalls. Books, podcasts, movies, television shows, flatscreen video games, they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. When a movie comes along that does an astounding job of playing to cinema's strength, people are going to bring it up as an example of a good movie. Beat Saber is the same.
Which isn't to say all games have to be designed strictly around VR's strengths, there are games that exist in both formats, and sometimes it comes out better than the original version (Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, Super Hot). Other times it's just ok because the game design doesn't translate as well to VR (Skyrim, Borderlands).
If what you're hoping for is mainstream AAA titles to get adapted into VR and achieve millions of sales, then yes I think you'll be disappointed. But Beat Saber isn't the only opportunity to be thoughtful about how VR interfaces work. I doubt I'd have ever bought a minigolf game to play on a TV, but Walkabout Mini Golf is relaxing and a lot of fun. On the shooter side of things, you have games like Half-Life: Alyx or Hyper Dash. Puzzling Places lets you assemble 3D puzzles of scanned real world environments. Tea For God takes a limited play area and carefully designs a continuous level that feels boundless as you walk freely though it.
We're not going to have Matrix-like VR interactions any time soon where you swing a sword and your hands are physically stopped when your opponent blocks it. But I wouldn't look at that and say "No way this goes anywhere, the pinnacle of game design is the limitless interface of two thumb sticks, four buttons, a D-pad, and a pair of bumpers/triggers."
Which isn't to say all games have to be designed strictly around VR's strengths, there are games that exist in both formats, and sometimes it comes out better than the original version (Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, Super Hot). Other times it's just ok because the game design doesn't translate as well to VR (Skyrim, Borderlands).
If what you're hoping for is mainstream AAA titles to get adapted into VR and achieve millions of sales, then yes I think you'll be disappointed. But Beat Saber isn't the only opportunity to be thoughtful about how VR interfaces work. I doubt I'd have ever bought a minigolf game to play on a TV, but Walkabout Mini Golf is relaxing and a lot of fun. On the shooter side of things, you have games like Half-Life: Alyx or Hyper Dash. Puzzling Places lets you assemble 3D puzzles of scanned real world environments. Tea For God takes a limited play area and carefully designs a continuous level that feels boundless as you walk freely though it.
We're not going to have Matrix-like VR interactions any time soon where you swing a sword and your hands are physically stopped when your opponent blocks it. But I wouldn't look at that and say "No way this goes anywhere, the pinnacle of game design is the limitless interface of two thumb sticks, four buttons, a D-pad, and a pair of bumpers/triggers."
> Everything is designed around its own pitfalls.
This is true, but it’s also true that most things don’t claim to be major paradigm shifts and “the future”. Designing VR around these limits won’t satisfy people who have been promised ready player one. It’s a gimmick with some good potential, but it’s just a gimmick.
This is true, but it’s also true that most things don’t claim to be major paradigm shifts and “the future”. Designing VR around these limits won’t satisfy people who have been promised ready player one. It’s a gimmick with some good potential, but it’s just a gimmick.
>largely graphics we could have replicated on the the Playstation 1 or N64
I know you are making a hyperbole, but that is just absolutely ridiculous.
I know you are making a hyperbole, but that is just absolutely ridiculous.
I am being hyperbolic, but not that much. Certainly running the full simulation of either Minecraft or Roblox (not to mention the network bandwidth requirements) is well beyond anything that old, but purely the level of visual detail would barely be out of reach of that generation.
visually speaking, black is a problem. Black is a colour on computer displays but in the real world it's the absence of light
That isn't a problem. People don't want to use technology to exactly replicate the real world - they use tech to replicate the real world up to a point, and then they diverge into things that can't happen in the real world. People don't care if the black isn't quite right. After all, people watch films and TV a lot, and they have the same problem.
There are lots of reasons why VR might fail to become mainstream in the long term but graphics isn't one of them.
That isn't a problem. People don't want to use technology to exactly replicate the real world - they use tech to replicate the real world up to a point, and then they diverge into things that can't happen in the real world. People don't care if the black isn't quite right. After all, people watch films and TV a lot, and they have the same problem.
There are lots of reasons why VR might fail to become mainstream in the long term but graphics isn't one of them.
The same was said for PDAs from Apple Newton (1992) -> Windows CE devices (1996) -> Palm Pilot (1997) -> iPhone (2007). Lots of enthusiasts who thought having a computer in their pocket was amazing and everyone else who thought it would never be anything more than a niche.
My first VR experience was in 1992 (Dactyl Nightmare!) and I thought for sure it was going to be the next big thing. Thirty years later, I think the VR market is pretty big and might be plateauing. There are millions of headsets out there - enough for a lot of software companies to make money. Does it still need exponential growth?
Or maybe it's going to take a company like Apple to really figure out VR. As you pointed out, it took them two swings at the pocket computing problem over 15 years to really nail it. Maybe the VR headset trajectory will be similar - semi-successful product in a year or two and then 15 years from now, something really great.
I mostly believe the first thing I said is true - the VR market is pretty big and is only a failure if you were expecting iPhone-like success.
AR, on the other hand, is going to blow up but probably not with anything head-mounted. For example, my car projects information onto my windshield when I drive. I think that qualifies as an AR device.
Or maybe it's going to take a company like Apple to really figure out VR. As you pointed out, it took them two swings at the pocket computing problem over 15 years to really nail it. Maybe the VR headset trajectory will be similar - semi-successful product in a year or two and then 15 years from now, something really great.
I mostly believe the first thing I said is true - the VR market is pretty big and is only a failure if you were expecting iPhone-like success.
AR, on the other hand, is going to blow up but probably not with anything head-mounted. For example, my car projects information onto my windshield when I drive. I think that qualifies as an AR device.
I believe AR will blow up but I don't believe AR entertainment will likely blow up except for a few niche games. It's arguably way too hard to fit every story to the environment you're in (AR) than to just put you in a different environment (VR) for playing a game or experiencing a VR movie.
SO are you saying that all niche eventually become mainstream products? I hate to disappoint you, but most niche products remain niche products. The exception you took is far from being the rule.
I don't know. I only know that for me, after playing Half Life: Alyx, I never want the play a non-VR first person shooter again. Being there is 10x better than looking at a movie of being there (a 2D monitor). Having played No Man's Sky in VR I can't imagine being satisfied with a non VR space game. Having played Until You Fall, I can't imagine being okay with a non-VR action hand-2-hand combat game. Having played several rhythm games in VR I can't imagine going back to most 2D rhythm games. The VR ones make me dance so the experience is far more impactful. The 2D ones, maybe only those with accessories (Rockband, Guitar Hero) would still be ok but their excitement level is not even close to the VR games. Having played Jet Island I'd never be satisfied with non-VR Spiderman. Having played Farpoint I won't be able to appreciate the Metroid Prime 4. Even Astrobot VR makes it hard to go back to Mario even if Mario is a better game.
I'm not saying all those games are perfect or even good, only that the immersion, presence, impact was such that I can't go back to many 2D monitor based games. Sure there are exceptions, it's not always about graphics or etc, but I'd much rather play GTA5 than GTA3, not because GTA3 is bad, it was great, but because based on the type of game it is it's just better with modern tech. The same is true for many well made games in VR.
So will VR get to iPhone level? No idea. But I hope it gets close to PS4/PS5/Switch levels
---
Let me add, my point in PDA progression is that we don't know what it will take for VR to explode. PDAs didn't explode until 3 things happened (1) switching from resistive (stylus required) to capacitive (finger) displays, (2) requiring a data connections, all previous PDAs it was an expensive option that few opted into but iPhone effectively required it since it was a replacement for your phone and so it forced users to see the benefit (3) an OS designed for fingers/phones first.
In VR it could be we need smaller eyeglass like devices instead of bulky phone display devices: https://www.gmw3.com/2021/01/new-design-appears-at-ces-2021-... It could be we need the device to read your hands+fingers instead of requiring controllers. It could be we need to wait for the VR to be like that in Black Mirror, Season 5, episode 1, Striking Vipers. That's still "VR".
I'm not saying all those games are perfect or even good, only that the immersion, presence, impact was such that I can't go back to many 2D monitor based games. Sure there are exceptions, it's not always about graphics or etc, but I'd much rather play GTA5 than GTA3, not because GTA3 is bad, it was great, but because based on the type of game it is it's just better with modern tech. The same is true for many well made games in VR.
So will VR get to iPhone level? No idea. But I hope it gets close to PS4/PS5/Switch levels
---
Let me add, my point in PDA progression is that we don't know what it will take for VR to explode. PDAs didn't explode until 3 things happened (1) switching from resistive (stylus required) to capacitive (finger) displays, (2) requiring a data connections, all previous PDAs it was an expensive option that few opted into but iPhone effectively required it since it was a replacement for your phone and so it forced users to see the benefit (3) an OS designed for fingers/phones first.
In VR it could be we need smaller eyeglass like devices instead of bulky phone display devices: https://www.gmw3.com/2021/01/new-design-appears-at-ces-2021-... It could be we need the device to read your hands+fingers instead of requiring controllers. It could be we need to wait for the VR to be like that in Black Mirror, Season 5, episode 1, Striking Vipers. That's still "VR".
Power glove.
I got the first Oculus Rift dev kit not too long after it came out and I got the first version of the HTC Vive.
I find it hard to talk about VR as some monolithic thing. When I first tried it, I felt the same "wow, this is the future!" feeling most enthusiasts got. The stutters and the weird headaches then made me add "...but not the present".
But my personal issues with it are both surmountable and not shared by everyone. On the hardware side, the depth-of-focus issue must be solved somehow, and graphics processing must improve a lot on both the hardware and software side in order to eliminate any stutters (IMO any frame drop or framerates below 90 are unacceptable, again, my personal issue), image sharpness must match real-world screens at a reasonable distance (at least where I'm looking at) and when it comes to games, unfortunately anything that tries to look realistic still looks like mid-2000s graphics in VR.
Plus the headset must be comfortable to wear for at least 8h at a time, and there needs to be good full-body tracking, although for a virtual workplace that's not so important.
I'd probably spend all of my work and play time in VR if these things were solved, and I could totally see that happening in the next few years, the way things are going.
Unless the only good option is Facebook, in which case, I'll pass.
I find it hard to talk about VR as some monolithic thing. When I first tried it, I felt the same "wow, this is the future!" feeling most enthusiasts got. The stutters and the weird headaches then made me add "...but not the present".
But my personal issues with it are both surmountable and not shared by everyone. On the hardware side, the depth-of-focus issue must be solved somehow, and graphics processing must improve a lot on both the hardware and software side in order to eliminate any stutters (IMO any frame drop or framerates below 90 are unacceptable, again, my personal issue), image sharpness must match real-world screens at a reasonable distance (at least where I'm looking at) and when it comes to games, unfortunately anything that tries to look realistic still looks like mid-2000s graphics in VR.
Plus the headset must be comfortable to wear for at least 8h at a time, and there needs to be good full-body tracking, although for a virtual workplace that's not so important.
I'd probably spend all of my work and play time in VR if these things were solved, and I could totally see that happening in the next few years, the way things are going.
Unless the only good option is Facebook, in which case, I'll pass.
I agree with most you say, but did you try a newer Standalone VR helmet? It might not be for everyone and overhyped last year, but we are getting tremendous value from it in online meetings, working together and using it as substitute for a stack of (5) large monitors on one laptop. I like the games but I am not a big gamer and can see how the controls are an issue for hardcore gamers, however for at least dev work, this thing was worth it’s weight in palladium and then some for during and now ‘after’ covid. Now that handtracking starts working well, it is only getting better.
I hope it will improving as I can see this working well for portable dev work once everything gets smaller and more powerful. I mean I am there now but there is no software (at least last I checked) to work in environments where I can just have 5-6 screens with browsers open without my laptop connected. If that and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and I no longer need a laptop for 90% of my work. And then just make it smaller for improvement:.
I hope it will improving as I can see this working well for portable dev work once everything gets smaller and more powerful. I mean I am there now but there is no software (at least last I checked) to work in environments where I can just have 5-6 screens with browsers open without my laptop connected. If that and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and I no longer need a laptop for 90% of my work. And then just make it smaller for improvement:.
I use VR for Flight Simulator and Elite Dangerous. Living my space exploration dream in VR (sitting down!) is truly a magical thing. VR isn't necessarily only the room experience games and I think some folks forget that.
I have a Steam Index and I think the games are fun and re-playable. The problem for me was -
I live in too small a space, and this requires a dedicated game room or having to re-arrange furniture, set up the external sensors (not true for Oculus but true for this), and then recalibrating. That, plus the heavy headset and massive cables.
The controllers are amazing through, they track all your fingers without being attached to your fingers.
It has a future, it's still a little rough around the edges. However, apartment dwellers might be limited in their interest.
I live in too small a space, and this requires a dedicated game room or having to re-arrange furniture, set up the external sensors (not true for Oculus but true for this), and then recalibrating. That, plus the heavy headset and massive cables.
The controllers are amazing through, they track all your fingers without being attached to your fingers.
It has a future, it's still a little rough around the edges. However, apartment dwellers might be limited in their interest.
I've seen this kind of boom become bust twice already; we'll have to see how this one pans out.
I will note that technology-wise, the hardware is better than it's ever been and I think it has a fighting chance this time previous iterations lacked. For all their simplicity, mouse and keyboard have a level of accuracy and precision that VR does not. This is partially due to their simplicity (keys are binary devices, and a mouse can track position to near-perfection with optical flow modeling, or even the old wheel solution from days of yore). In contrast, VR not only has traditionally had lower-resolution on the tracking signal, it's tracking far, far more degrees of freedom (at least six, but if you want to accurately represent the user's kinematics the number explodes). Plus, the biological sensor fusion we humans use to determine our position in the world demands accuracy from the virtual hardware because we can be very sensitive to input error (and we feel it as nausea, disorientation, or vertigo).
The sensor fusion of modern cheap accelerometer tech with the absolute tracking of either lighthouses or whole-room flow imaging has had amazing consequences, but it's not yet perfect and I don't know if a critical mass of users will demand perfection or not. We'll find out. But, I've never seen better hardware taking a stab at the market before.
I will note that technology-wise, the hardware is better than it's ever been and I think it has a fighting chance this time previous iterations lacked. For all their simplicity, mouse and keyboard have a level of accuracy and precision that VR does not. This is partially due to their simplicity (keys are binary devices, and a mouse can track position to near-perfection with optical flow modeling, or even the old wheel solution from days of yore). In contrast, VR not only has traditionally had lower-resolution on the tracking signal, it's tracking far, far more degrees of freedom (at least six, but if you want to accurately represent the user's kinematics the number explodes). Plus, the biological sensor fusion we humans use to determine our position in the world demands accuracy from the virtual hardware because we can be very sensitive to input error (and we feel it as nausea, disorientation, or vertigo).
The sensor fusion of modern cheap accelerometer tech with the absolute tracking of either lighthouses or whole-room flow imaging has had amazing consequences, but it's not yet perfect and I don't know if a critical mass of users will demand perfection or not. We'll find out. But, I've never seen better hardware taking a stab at the market before.
Blacks are essentially a solved problem with (micro)OLED. Controls are a non-issue, it's no different than holding a screwdriver or pen, humans are quite adapted to using tools to manipulate the world and we have hand and finger tracking on top if necessary. Latency again, not really a major problem, works well enough, this is VR after all, not telerobotics, if the game engine has to cheat a little, that's fine. Focus adjust exists in a couple of prototypes, but so far hasn't made it into the consumer space, I'd rate this as a "nice to have", most people quickly get used to the fixed focus.
The big problem VR has to overcome is getting resolution parity with monitors. At the moment VR is still extremely low resolution, even headsets in the 2000x2000 realm are, due to the image being stretch across ~100° FOV, only the equivalent of an old 800x600 monitor. That's not good enough for a lot of uses. It works fine for VR games, but barely works for 2D movies and even less so for text. Given that the majority of content out there is made for larger resolutions, that's the biggest stumbling block for VR as it means people have to get out of VR and use another display device.
I think once resolution is solved, that will be the killer-app for VR just by itself. As it means a VR headsets, which can be turned into an AR headset via camera pass through, is able to replace every screen you currently have. That will be the point where people can start ditching their multi-monitor setups and have essentially an empty desk with just a headset. The appeal of getting ever bigger TVs will also vanish when you can have a virtual IMAX screen in your headset.
It will still take some years until VR/AR headset are good enough and comfortable enough to replace TVs and monitors en masse. But I have little doubt that it will happen sooner or later. All the VR gaming stuff is really just a bonus here and I don't think we'll get mass VR adaption just from that.
The big problem VR has to overcome is getting resolution parity with monitors. At the moment VR is still extremely low resolution, even headsets in the 2000x2000 realm are, due to the image being stretch across ~100° FOV, only the equivalent of an old 800x600 monitor. That's not good enough for a lot of uses. It works fine for VR games, but barely works for 2D movies and even less so for text. Given that the majority of content out there is made for larger resolutions, that's the biggest stumbling block for VR as it means people have to get out of VR and use another display device.
I think once resolution is solved, that will be the killer-app for VR just by itself. As it means a VR headsets, which can be turned into an AR headset via camera pass through, is able to replace every screen you currently have. That will be the point where people can start ditching their multi-monitor setups and have essentially an empty desk with just a headset. The appeal of getting ever bigger TVs will also vanish when you can have a virtual IMAX screen in your headset.
It will still take some years until VR/AR headset are good enough and comfortable enough to replace TVs and monitors en masse. But I have little doubt that it will happen sooner or later. All the VR gaming stuff is really just a bonus here and I don't think we'll get mass VR adaption just from that.
The software side of this vision is already surprisingly mature and mostly waiting for hardware to catch up.
On my Quest 2, I can pop into a virtual environment with 5 desktops scaled around me in 3D space, a physical keyboard fully rendered into the environment that also tracks my fingers, and a scaleable camera “portal” positioned over the location of my doorway (in physical space) that displays a camera feed of anyone entering the room.
If I’m trying to relax, I can hop into a virtual movie theater on the moon and watch a 3D Blu-ray rip or play most modern AAA pc games.
All of this while sitting in a lounge chair in my living room.
And then, of course, there’s all the 6dof VR games but, after Alyx barely moved the hardware sales needle, I don’t think that sort of thing is what’s needed to drive mass adoption at this point.
VR needs much better screen tech, high performant SoCs, and a “coolness” factor. I wonder if there’s a company known for all three that has repeatedly yoinked entire markets even though they entered “late”?
On my Quest 2, I can pop into a virtual environment with 5 desktops scaled around me in 3D space, a physical keyboard fully rendered into the environment that also tracks my fingers, and a scaleable camera “portal” positioned over the location of my doorway (in physical space) that displays a camera feed of anyone entering the room.
If I’m trying to relax, I can hop into a virtual movie theater on the moon and watch a 3D Blu-ray rip or play most modern AAA pc games.
All of this while sitting in a lounge chair in my living room.
And then, of course, there’s all the 6dof VR games but, after Alyx barely moved the hardware sales needle, I don’t think that sort of thing is what’s needed to drive mass adoption at this point.
VR needs much better screen tech, high performant SoCs, and a “coolness” factor. I wonder if there’s a company known for all three that has repeatedly yoinked entire markets even though they entered “late”?
Perhaps you're imagining VR as an alternative to real life, but it's actually just an alternative to gaming on a monitor. I don't expect it to be comparable to life, I just expect it to be better than gaming on my monitor, and even then only for really particular games. You wouldn't play an RTS in VR, or even FPS games like Counter-Strike, since the actual gameplay of CS is mouse precision, reflexes and playspace awareness.
So VR is a niche even within the gaming community and will never replace the monitor except for some circumstances. But it does enable unique experiences that no other platform can.
Where VR excels is in visual immersion, intuitive interaction and spatial awareness. So it excel in games like racing and flight simulators, space sims, and in things like puzzle games where manipulating things with your hands adds a new dimension to the game.
So VR is a niche even within the gaming community and will never replace the monitor except for some circumstances. But it does enable unique experiences that no other platform can.
Where VR excels is in visual immersion, intuitive interaction and spatial awareness. So it excel in games like racing and flight simulators, space sims, and in things like puzzle games where manipulating things with your hands adds a new dimension to the game.
There's plenty of people who, having not tried anything resembling modern VR, completely discount it as a medium. So while you're not alone in your belief, your criticism also has red flags that will cause most people with experience in VR to not take it seriously, even its informed critics.
- Handling latency is more akin to client-side prediction behavior, rather than synchronous awaiting on network response for frame-by-frame accuracy. So it's more of a distribution problem of how to replicate and conflict-resolve state most efficiently, rather than round-trip latency.
- Black is not that much of a problem. The brain adapts.
- Focus is a problem with active work on it (using eye tracking) which we'll see improvements on in the near future, but it's worth noting that a fixed focal distance actually helps vision for some people.
- "There's no killer app for VR (optimists will add "yet") and no hint of what one might be.": no, optimists would tell you you're wrong. Someone mostly neutral would point to things like VRChat driving a noticeable portion of sales of VR headsets or additional equipment, which is promising in that there is a viable non-Meta social VR app currently in existence. A pessimist would argue that VRChat hasn't achieved a sustainable business model. A contrarian would further add to the pessimist's point that the top sellers in VR tend to be stagnant year over year, suggesting the industry isn't as live (optimist: yet) as many perceive it to be.
- "you're pretty much predicated on a pure brain-computer interface for it to feel realistic" - not quite. You might depend on that to present approximate realism, but VR - and we're talking 6dof here, 3dof is far below any threshold of believability/immersion - does not require much approximation of hand position for the brain to very quickly allow a virtual world to feel "real" enough for some fairly deep immersion.
Better-informed critics of VR typically question its broad appeal based on motion sickness, lack of support/indifference/hostility from other game developers or middleware developers, difficulty of authoring plausible VR content in general, inconsistent hardware depressing the quality of software aimed at the "lowest common denominator" device (though this last one has largely evaporated due to the Quest 2 being very cheap and very good), possible risk of effects on children's development of physical balance if they play too much, and so on.
- Handling latency is more akin to client-side prediction behavior, rather than synchronous awaiting on network response for frame-by-frame accuracy. So it's more of a distribution problem of how to replicate and conflict-resolve state most efficiently, rather than round-trip latency.
- Black is not that much of a problem. The brain adapts.
- Focus is a problem with active work on it (using eye tracking) which we'll see improvements on in the near future, but it's worth noting that a fixed focal distance actually helps vision for some people.
- "There's no killer app for VR (optimists will add "yet") and no hint of what one might be.": no, optimists would tell you you're wrong. Someone mostly neutral would point to things like VRChat driving a noticeable portion of sales of VR headsets or additional equipment, which is promising in that there is a viable non-Meta social VR app currently in existence. A pessimist would argue that VRChat hasn't achieved a sustainable business model. A contrarian would further add to the pessimist's point that the top sellers in VR tend to be stagnant year over year, suggesting the industry isn't as live (optimist: yet) as many perceive it to be.
- "you're pretty much predicated on a pure brain-computer interface for it to feel realistic" - not quite. You might depend on that to present approximate realism, but VR - and we're talking 6dof here, 3dof is far below any threshold of believability/immersion - does not require much approximation of hand position for the brain to very quickly allow a virtual world to feel "real" enough for some fairly deep immersion.
Better-informed critics of VR typically question its broad appeal based on motion sickness, lack of support/indifference/hostility from other game developers or middleware developers, difficulty of authoring plausible VR content in general, inconsistent hardware depressing the quality of software aimed at the "lowest common denominator" device (though this last one has largely evaporated due to the Quest 2 being very cheap and very good), possible risk of effects on children's development of physical balance if they play too much, and so on.
I played around with VR back in 2013, and thought 3D conferences were neat, but annoying.
However, I believe that if headsets can be made less bulky, it will become ubiquitous. I don't know what the experience will be like, it certainly won't be matrix-y, but I can absolutely see a generation of 20 somethings expecting goggles at some point in the future, maybe 10 years from now.
It might actually be Zuck's vision of sanitized cartoony avatars zipping around with no legs because look at how much money kids spend on VBUCKS to look slightly different in Fortnight. The Fortnight generation's kids will be hooked on VR if the goggles are cheap/small enough.
However, I believe that if headsets can be made less bulky, it will become ubiquitous. I don't know what the experience will be like, it certainly won't be matrix-y, but I can absolutely see a generation of 20 somethings expecting goggles at some point in the future, maybe 10 years from now.
It might actually be Zuck's vision of sanitized cartoony avatars zipping around with no legs because look at how much money kids spend on VBUCKS to look slightly different in Fortnight. The Fortnight generation's kids will be hooked on VR if the goggles are cheap/small enough.
I've loved VR since I first tried it and I still love it.
> There's no killer app for VR
We'll end up quibbling about the definition of "killer app" but I think there's dozens killer apps for VR. If you mean "an app that will make it as popular as the smartphone" then you're right. But that's a strangely high bar. If you mean "an app that is compelling enough to sell a reasonably large number of headsets" then that definitely already exists. (but then we can enjoy quibbling about what "reasonably large" means)
> There's no killer app for VR
We'll end up quibbling about the definition of "killer app" but I think there's dozens killer apps for VR. If you mean "an app that will make it as popular as the smartphone" then you're right. But that's a strangely high bar. If you mean "an app that is compelling enough to sell a reasonably large number of headsets" then that definitely already exists. (but then we can enjoy quibbling about what "reasonably large" means)
I think the idea of a killer app for VR misses the point a bit anyway. It doesn't need a killer app since it doesn't need mainstream adoption. If we are looking for a mainstream adoptable use case it is probably in AR. VR has a specific use case and that's fine.
I think it has a chance, but it's definitely on life support. All the big names from this latest attempt (Valve, HTC, Sony) have already given up on it. Facebook is trying to turn it into a thing, but I think they're just trying one last gasp on a failed acquisition before firing that team. Sony and Apple claim to have new hardware coming down the pipe, but I imagine they're feeling much less enthusiastic about it now than when they started those projects. Maybe one of those three will pull it off, but it's not looking good.
Meta has over 10,000 people working on VR / AR and has invested tens of billions in it. I don't think they're giving up very soon.
If the best they've got for all that investment is that hilariously terrible VR demo video from a couple months ago, I wouldn't bet on that team sticking around around long term.
Have you tried the Quest? It's actually good.
I don't know if it will find a true mass-market product fit: annual unit sales are still in the millions, a long way from the billions of the smartphone market. But it's certainly not because the product inherently sucks.
I bet Zuckerberg is ready to swallow at least another $50 billion in losses before giving up on the VR dream. The FB/IG ad machine is sputtering but still pays for that easily.
I don't know if it will find a true mass-market product fit: annual unit sales are still in the millions, a long way from the billions of the smartphone market. But it's certainly not because the product inherently sucks.
I bet Zuckerberg is ready to swallow at least another $50 billion in losses before giving up on the VR dream. The FB/IG ad machine is sputtering but still pays for that easily.
I haven't used a Quest specifically, but I have used a number of VR headsets, both personally and for work. Regardless of the hardware tech, there just isn't a compelling user story there, and I think the market performance over the past five years bears that out. The only thing anyone talks about is Beat Saber, not even Alyx made a cultural dent. Facebook's VR demo video was frankly embarassing. There's just nothing there to attract users, it's a solution looking for a problem. Facebook certainly has the money to fund this boondoggle for eternity, but that doesn't guarantee any significant userbase or cultural impact. Like I said in my original comment, maybe Apple will strike gold and find another iPod in this, but I just don't see it happening.
Put another way: VR has the smell of 3D TVs and movies, and not the next smartphone.
Put another way: VR has the smell of 3D TVs and movies, and not the next smartphone.
It's hard to see what VR does better than pancake computing.
Superficially it's obvious - 3D! immersion!
But practically it's not at all like real 3D (no tactility at all, stupid strap-on goggles with trailing cables, weird mismatches between head movement and perspective, no integration with the real world so you're constantly anxious about bumping into the furniture, and let's not even get started on avatars etc).
So far it's just too clumsy to be a convincing substitute. It's basically only really credible as a game accessory - like a joystick, but better.
I can't see VR becoming phone-popular until two way direct neural interfaces become a polished technology. And when that happens a lot of other developments become possible at the same time.
Superficially it's obvious - 3D! immersion!
But practically it's not at all like real 3D (no tactility at all, stupid strap-on goggles with trailing cables, weird mismatches between head movement and perspective, no integration with the real world so you're constantly anxious about bumping into the furniture, and let's not even get started on avatars etc).
So far it's just too clumsy to be a convincing substitute. It's basically only really credible as a game accessory - like a joystick, but better.
I can't see VR becoming phone-popular until two way direct neural interfaces become a polished technology. And when that happens a lot of other developments become possible at the same time.
Link?
If you want to waste an hour, here's the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvufun6xer8
Or a much shorter recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElfIo6uw4g
Or a much shorter recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElfIo6uw4g
> There's no killer app for VR
Apparently HL: Alyx may be that kind of thing. Problem is, it's just one game, and it took years and lots of efforts to make for probably very little return on investment.
Apparently HL: Alyx may be that kind of thing. Problem is, it's just one game, and it took years and lots of efforts to make for probably very little return on investment.
Wow, your post sure got a lot of replies, heh. I've not used a modern VR headset but I have used a TrackIR, and to me it provides such a huge leap in immersion that I can't really see how VR would be worth the extra hassle over that. I'd rather have a CAVE than anything like today's consumer VR. Give me more and bigger screens, not some headwear out of a dystopian sci-fi movie.
Re: the blacks. Hopefully the next generation of valve index & others will have OLED screens with proper blacks.
What makes me worried about the future of VR is that there is no "entry-level" VR solution anymore since Google and Samsung cancelled Daydream and Gear VR respectively. Which means that in order to try it out in the comfort of your own home you now have to invest ~400 €.
Quest2 goes for $300/350€ and is a substantially more complete and better VR package than Daydream/GearVR ever was, i.e. positional tracking on headset and controller, Daydream/GearVR was rotation only. Not having to use a phone also reduces a lot of friction in using the device and drastically improves the visuals.
I do however miss the $200/200€ WMR headsets that we had for a while, that felt like a more reasonable entry point for a PC gaming headset. There is currently no replacement for those. Quest2 not only adds price, but also weight due to battery and SoC, which you don't really want or need when using it only on PC.
I do however miss the $200/200€ WMR headsets that we had for a while, that felt like a more reasonable entry point for a PC gaming headset. There is currently no replacement for those. Quest2 not only adds price, but also weight due to battery and SoC, which you don't really want or need when using it only on PC.
I think Daydream and Gear VR set VR back more than anything, and if they were going to keep doing what they were doing it's a good thing they're gone. See the many comments in this thread conflating 3DOF headsets (glorified panorama viewers) with the same 6DOF VR (full movement in space plus all-important hands) that people are actually excited about.
>For me the Infocom games (Zork in particular) will always be remembered fondly but part of the magic was the time and you can never step in the same river twice.
Inform6, 7. Then get Anchorhead, Inside Woman, Spider and Web, Vicious Cycles, Slouch Over Bedlam, Curses+Jigsaw and get amazed.
Inform6, 7. Then get Anchorhead, Inside Woman, Spider and Web, Vicious Cycles, Slouch Over Bedlam, Curses+Jigsaw and get amazed.
I have worked in the VR industry full time for the last 5 years. Your description of the problems of VR are unrecognizable to me.
Which people are these that "think of the Matrix" when they think of VR? I've seen some people talk about it, or more often Sword Art Online. But they are rare. It tends to mark folks as not having really tried VR. I've seen people talk about not even wanting to try VR until it's "full dive". That's dumb. I doubt it's ever going to get there and I also doubt it's even a good idea. See: The Matrix and SAO for depictions of why.
I think "people" know the tech is not magic and have decent expectations on what it entails. What I tend to see are people blown away by how impactful that simple "box with a display and some lenses" concept works at transporting a person to a new world.
I don't think anyone really cares about black levels that much, not to the degree that it becomes any kind of deciding factor on purchases. Focus... are you sure you're not Ronny Abovitz? Literally the only person I've seen ranting about focus. Again, nobody cares. It'd certainly be nice, but it's just not that important of a feature.
Your comment on latency is confusing. Which latency? Motion-to-photon latency? Hasn't been a problem in years. Network latency? We're not talking about a networked game here, and regardless, that's going to be true for any kind of multiplayer experience, VR or otherwise. It's also a largely solved problem and people don't tend to notice network latency in most multiplayer games. The only latency issue I encounter on a regular basis is Oculus Quest 2's hand tracking latency. That's not a fundamental limitation, though, because other hand tracking systems like UltraLeap show that it can be done very well. The Quest's problem is that it's running on what's essentially a 3 year old smartphone SOC.
As for "killer apps", honestly, I have never really believed in the concept. There's nothing on my smartphone that I can't do without it being specifically on my smartphone. But combined, the whole ecosystem is extremely useful. My smartphone also isn't the seamless digital assistant Jobs predicted it would be, but it's still extremely useful. Back in 2008, most people thought smartphones weren't for them, but now most find them extremely useful.
There are problems in the VR industry. Any device that isn't the Quest 2 is too expensive and not featureful enough to warrant the expense. Building software for VR is still extremely primitive (No, Unity doesn't solve it. Come back to me after you ship a Unity VR project that meets Meta's store guidelines if you disagree). Battery life on standalone systems is abysmal. I don't know anyone with a PC-tethered system that hasn't destroyed several cables, ports, keyboards, or even just glass containers.
And there are problems being foisted on VR. The global chip shortage is making it way to hard to scale. Meta's attempts to dominate the market by undercutting the competition is a huge danger to everyone. This coopting of social VR into "metaverse" by crypto grifters is going to kill an entire segment of the app market. Megacorp's inability/unwillingness to moderate user behavior on their platforms is a lot more harmful to people's mental health when it's literally in their faces.
But the biggest one might be people who don't know anything about VR claiming it's "useless" or "dead".
Which people are these that "think of the Matrix" when they think of VR? I've seen some people talk about it, or more often Sword Art Online. But they are rare. It tends to mark folks as not having really tried VR. I've seen people talk about not even wanting to try VR until it's "full dive". That's dumb. I doubt it's ever going to get there and I also doubt it's even a good idea. See: The Matrix and SAO for depictions of why.
I think "people" know the tech is not magic and have decent expectations on what it entails. What I tend to see are people blown away by how impactful that simple "box with a display and some lenses" concept works at transporting a person to a new world.
I don't think anyone really cares about black levels that much, not to the degree that it becomes any kind of deciding factor on purchases. Focus... are you sure you're not Ronny Abovitz? Literally the only person I've seen ranting about focus. Again, nobody cares. It'd certainly be nice, but it's just not that important of a feature.
Your comment on latency is confusing. Which latency? Motion-to-photon latency? Hasn't been a problem in years. Network latency? We're not talking about a networked game here, and regardless, that's going to be true for any kind of multiplayer experience, VR or otherwise. It's also a largely solved problem and people don't tend to notice network latency in most multiplayer games. The only latency issue I encounter on a regular basis is Oculus Quest 2's hand tracking latency. That's not a fundamental limitation, though, because other hand tracking systems like UltraLeap show that it can be done very well. The Quest's problem is that it's running on what's essentially a 3 year old smartphone SOC.
As for "killer apps", honestly, I have never really believed in the concept. There's nothing on my smartphone that I can't do without it being specifically on my smartphone. But combined, the whole ecosystem is extremely useful. My smartphone also isn't the seamless digital assistant Jobs predicted it would be, but it's still extremely useful. Back in 2008, most people thought smartphones weren't for them, but now most find them extremely useful.
There are problems in the VR industry. Any device that isn't the Quest 2 is too expensive and not featureful enough to warrant the expense. Building software for VR is still extremely primitive (No, Unity doesn't solve it. Come back to me after you ship a Unity VR project that meets Meta's store guidelines if you disagree). Battery life on standalone systems is abysmal. I don't know anyone with a PC-tethered system that hasn't destroyed several cables, ports, keyboards, or even just glass containers.
And there are problems being foisted on VR. The global chip shortage is making it way to hard to scale. Meta's attempts to dominate the market by undercutting the competition is a huge danger to everyone. This coopting of social VR into "metaverse" by crypto grifters is going to kill an entire segment of the app market. Megacorp's inability/unwillingness to moderate user behavior on their platforms is a lot more harmful to people's mental health when it's literally in their faces.
But the biggest one might be people who don't know anything about VR claiming it's "useless" or "dead".
You might be too surrounded by people who are into current VR.
> Focus... Again, nobody cares.
That’s just not true. Having a single fixed focal distance was super jarring when I’ve tried VR. But normal people won’t complain about that. They’ll just say “looks weird.”
Personally, the problem it needs to solve is figuring out how to let me virtually move without physically moving, while not making it awkward and also not getting me motion sick. So far, that problem still feels fundamental.
> Focus... Again, nobody cares.
That’s just not true. Having a single fixed focal distance was super jarring when I’ve tried VR. But normal people won’t complain about that. They’ll just say “looks weird.”
Personally, the problem it needs to solve is figuring out how to let me virtually move without physically moving, while not making it awkward and also not getting me motion sick. So far, that problem still feels fundamental.
I'm the only VR developer at the company where I work, and I don't work for a software company. I make a foreign language training tool for people who are largely A) government employees, B) not gamers.
We get a small amount of skepticism from maybe 25% of the students before they try it for the first time. After putting hundreds of our own students through the system, only 1 has given it a universally negative review, and he generally gave the entire instruction program a negative review anyway. Can't please everyone all the time.
Most of our students end up using the system multiple times. They always have the option to not use it at all, or use it from a 2D PC display. Nobody has opted-out completely, and only 1 person has opted-out of VR.
About 10% have mentioned a slight feeling of dizziness after their first session, with only about 10% of those people saying the feeling returned after subsequent sessions on later dates. We've had only 1 person who flat out couldn't use the system because of simsickness. It comes out to about 0.3% of our students, which turns out is less than the proportion of people who experience moderate to severe discomfort from watching FPS video games or action movies in a theater. I've tried to encourage the instructors to limit the first session to 20 minutes to get that 10% number down even further, but most of the students haven't minded the dizziness enough to stop and end up keep going for 1hr+ sessions.
When people provide feedback, they tell us they want more to do, higher display resolution, easier setup, and more intuitive controls. Noone has ever complained about focus, latency, black levels, headset weight, etc.
We get a small amount of skepticism from maybe 25% of the students before they try it for the first time. After putting hundreds of our own students through the system, only 1 has given it a universally negative review, and he generally gave the entire instruction program a negative review anyway. Can't please everyone all the time.
Most of our students end up using the system multiple times. They always have the option to not use it at all, or use it from a 2D PC display. Nobody has opted-out completely, and only 1 person has opted-out of VR.
About 10% have mentioned a slight feeling of dizziness after their first session, with only about 10% of those people saying the feeling returned after subsequent sessions on later dates. We've had only 1 person who flat out couldn't use the system because of simsickness. It comes out to about 0.3% of our students, which turns out is less than the proportion of people who experience moderate to severe discomfort from watching FPS video games or action movies in a theater. I've tried to encourage the instructors to limit the first session to 20 minutes to get that 10% number down even further, but most of the students haven't minded the dizziness enough to stop and end up keep going for 1hr+ sessions.
When people provide feedback, they tell us they want more to do, higher display resolution, easier setup, and more intuitive controls. Noone has ever complained about focus, latency, black levels, headset weight, etc.
I find it disappointing that your comment is one based in your personal experience, speaking directly about your time in the industry with the tooling in question, yet it was downvoted.
Just wanted you to know that I found your insight valuable and I must admit I'm surprised so few people had any issues with motion sickness/sim sickness. Have you don't anything specific to tackle that within the software you've developed?
Just wanted you to know that I found your insight valuable and I must admit I'm surprised so few people had any issues with motion sickness/sim sickness. Have you don't anything specific to tackle that within the software you've developed?
Thanks.
Yes, I've done a lot.
It started with establishing various guidelines. Core values: why we are doing this, what we want to get out of it (extremely useful to have when you get into disagreements about feature design. You can point back to the core values that people agreed were core). Design: what should be done, what should NEVER be done. Testing: not just what needed to be tested, how to test it, what kinds of tests needed to be ran (technical, load, users, etc), but also who needed to do the testing (adaptation is a problem! New-to-VR users are a non-renewable resource!), and what they needed to be informed of before the test (equal parts informed concent and psychological priming). We found that if we primed users with the expectation they would feel dizzy the first time, but typically not the second, they would report higher levels of satisfaction and be more willing to perform additional sessions.
As I said, I'm the only VR developer here. I have one other software developer working for me, but she works on some of the database management, and only started relatively recently in the project life. And that's it. The company is not a software company. Establishing that testing guideline also made it possible for a lot more people in the company to engage in the project.
From a software development perspective, it involves being really honest with yourself about the strengths and weaknesses of your content. Our app incorporates a "guided tour" metaphor for instructors to take students around Google Street View imagery and practice their language skills. Google Street View is monoscopic photospheres with no depth information at all. It's not the best format for immersion, but it hits a lot of other goals for us, such as being culturally relevant, as well as being a vast source of content that we can easily combine and use without spending lots of money on 3D modelling.
Photosphere imagery causes a LOT of simsickness. If I had to list to list the top 3 causes of simsickness, it'd be low frame-rate, mismatch between motion cues in the visual and vestibular systems, and lack of depth cues. Photospheres hurt on two of those levels: you can't move inside of them and there are no stereo depth cues. But we get around it in multiple ways. First, we encourage the students to stay in their seats for the whole experience. Second, we focus on outdoor areas, so that most visual detail is beyond the range of stereo depth perception. We have also intentionally left all of our user interface elements visible at all times, so that you have 3D foreground elements to focus on. There's a wireframe floor grid that keeps most people from feeling like they're about to fall.
Incidentally, I think the photospheres help us in a demographic that typically fairs poorly in VR: women. Or I should say, people with a higher proportion of estrogen compared to testosterone (There are High-T woman and High-E men, the balance of each changes as we age, and it can change if, for example, you're undergoing hormone therapy). Apparently, the relative balance of hormones in the body can have a big impact on the visual cues our brains use to recognize depth. High-T people judge depth based on motion. High-E people judge depth based on shadowing and relative object size. Because we are using photos instead of 3D models, our "lighting" is 100% accurate. So where many projects will show a marked difference in simsickness between men and women, ours has not.
So despite starting in a tough spot with our source data, we actually end up doing a really good job in the simsickness department. Like I said before, only one person noped-out completely. I think it's pretty safe to say she would have become violently ill if she stayed in. I interviewed her afterward and she admitted she was extremely prone to motion sickness in cars and boats and had difficulty watching action movies in theaters. We had one other person complain about persistent feelings of dizziness, but it turned out we had had a significant performance regression, which we fixed and she was all better after that.
And I put a lot of effort into performance optimization. I had to be honest with myself and admit that the super-accurate audio spatialization system I was using was costing way too much compute for too little impact. The much simpler, though inferior, built-in spatialization was good enough and meant we could hit a much higher performance cap. Someone might look at my code and say I suffer from Not Implemented Here syndrome. I say most other people's code doesn't hit the performance targets we have. I know, because I tried, and had to replace it.
It also takes saying "NO" to some feature requests. I had to put my foot down on a request to let the instructor teleport students to new locations. I pointed to design guidelines: "Users in VR headsets SHALL NOT be virtually moved without their own direct, affirmative interaction".
Sometimes that "NO" is to avoid doing something that will harm users. Sometimes it's to avoid wasting time tasks that don't fit with our core values, time that could be spent in better ways. For example, we were able to quickly discard using AI as part of the student interaction because of one of our core values: to support our existing, best-in-class, instructor-led training, not replace it. Spending time on AI chatter bots to make the same, shitty, canned-called-response-convo app that every other company is making in the space would distract from... literally anything. Literally anything would be a better use of my time :)
How we've incorporated VR into our operations is a big part of why I don't really believe in this whole "but VR doesn't have a killer app" argument, especially when it comes from people who also talk about not liking the idea of being in VR for several hours at a time. We are not out to replace our instructor-led training with an VR/AI/ML/WTF/BBQ chatter bot system. We use VR as an enhancement of our existing offerings.
Incidentally, that makes it a lot easier from a business perspective, too. People already buy our services and we're not trying to get them to buy a new one. Our VR tools make us more competitive in our market. We get to establish VR as a norm in in-person language training, and we get to set the tone for what that means.
Anyway, this is getting a lot longer than I expected it to. I could talk at length about why VR is so important to language learning. But I should probably get back to working on it, instead.
Yes, I've done a lot.
It started with establishing various guidelines. Core values: why we are doing this, what we want to get out of it (extremely useful to have when you get into disagreements about feature design. You can point back to the core values that people agreed were core). Design: what should be done, what should NEVER be done. Testing: not just what needed to be tested, how to test it, what kinds of tests needed to be ran (technical, load, users, etc), but also who needed to do the testing (adaptation is a problem! New-to-VR users are a non-renewable resource!), and what they needed to be informed of before the test (equal parts informed concent and psychological priming). We found that if we primed users with the expectation they would feel dizzy the first time, but typically not the second, they would report higher levels of satisfaction and be more willing to perform additional sessions.
As I said, I'm the only VR developer here. I have one other software developer working for me, but she works on some of the database management, and only started relatively recently in the project life. And that's it. The company is not a software company. Establishing that testing guideline also made it possible for a lot more people in the company to engage in the project.
From a software development perspective, it involves being really honest with yourself about the strengths and weaknesses of your content. Our app incorporates a "guided tour" metaphor for instructors to take students around Google Street View imagery and practice their language skills. Google Street View is monoscopic photospheres with no depth information at all. It's not the best format for immersion, but it hits a lot of other goals for us, such as being culturally relevant, as well as being a vast source of content that we can easily combine and use without spending lots of money on 3D modelling.
Photosphere imagery causes a LOT of simsickness. If I had to list to list the top 3 causes of simsickness, it'd be low frame-rate, mismatch between motion cues in the visual and vestibular systems, and lack of depth cues. Photospheres hurt on two of those levels: you can't move inside of them and there are no stereo depth cues. But we get around it in multiple ways. First, we encourage the students to stay in their seats for the whole experience. Second, we focus on outdoor areas, so that most visual detail is beyond the range of stereo depth perception. We have also intentionally left all of our user interface elements visible at all times, so that you have 3D foreground elements to focus on. There's a wireframe floor grid that keeps most people from feeling like they're about to fall.
Incidentally, I think the photospheres help us in a demographic that typically fairs poorly in VR: women. Or I should say, people with a higher proportion of estrogen compared to testosterone (There are High-T woman and High-E men, the balance of each changes as we age, and it can change if, for example, you're undergoing hormone therapy). Apparently, the relative balance of hormones in the body can have a big impact on the visual cues our brains use to recognize depth. High-T people judge depth based on motion. High-E people judge depth based on shadowing and relative object size. Because we are using photos instead of 3D models, our "lighting" is 100% accurate. So where many projects will show a marked difference in simsickness between men and women, ours has not.
So despite starting in a tough spot with our source data, we actually end up doing a really good job in the simsickness department. Like I said before, only one person noped-out completely. I think it's pretty safe to say she would have become violently ill if she stayed in. I interviewed her afterward and she admitted she was extremely prone to motion sickness in cars and boats and had difficulty watching action movies in theaters. We had one other person complain about persistent feelings of dizziness, but it turned out we had had a significant performance regression, which we fixed and she was all better after that.
And I put a lot of effort into performance optimization. I had to be honest with myself and admit that the super-accurate audio spatialization system I was using was costing way too much compute for too little impact. The much simpler, though inferior, built-in spatialization was good enough and meant we could hit a much higher performance cap. Someone might look at my code and say I suffer from Not Implemented Here syndrome. I say most other people's code doesn't hit the performance targets we have. I know, because I tried, and had to replace it.
It also takes saying "NO" to some feature requests. I had to put my foot down on a request to let the instructor teleport students to new locations. I pointed to design guidelines: "Users in VR headsets SHALL NOT be virtually moved without their own direct, affirmative interaction".
Sometimes that "NO" is to avoid doing something that will harm users. Sometimes it's to avoid wasting time tasks that don't fit with our core values, time that could be spent in better ways. For example, we were able to quickly discard using AI as part of the student interaction because of one of our core values: to support our existing, best-in-class, instructor-led training, not replace it. Spending time on AI chatter bots to make the same, shitty, canned-called-response-convo app that every other company is making in the space would distract from... literally anything. Literally anything would be a better use of my time :)
How we've incorporated VR into our operations is a big part of why I don't really believe in this whole "but VR doesn't have a killer app" argument, especially when it comes from people who also talk about not liking the idea of being in VR for several hours at a time. We are not out to replace our instructor-led training with an VR/AI/ML/WTF/BBQ chatter bot system. We use VR as an enhancement of our existing offerings.
Incidentally, that makes it a lot easier from a business perspective, too. People already buy our services and we're not trying to get them to buy a new one. Our VR tools make us more competitive in our market. We get to establish VR as a norm in in-person language training, and we get to set the tone for what that means.
Anyway, this is getting a lot longer than I expected it to. I could talk at length about why VR is so important to language learning. But I should probably get back to working on it, instead.
Agreed and even when you can get the interpupillary distance correct you can still get peripheral blurring and sometimes have to adjust the headset constantly to make sure that you're looking straight on.
FoV is also a big deal that a lot of people tend to overlook, most of the commercial offerings only have around 100° whereas humans have about a 200° FOv. It's like I'm constantly playing a submarine periscope simulator.
FoV is also a big deal that a lot of people tend to overlook, most of the commercial offerings only have around 100° whereas humans have about a 200° FOv. It's like I'm constantly playing a submarine periscope simulator.
The FOV for regular FPS games is often less than 100deg, so you get more camera view than a typical monitor, it's just that you can't see anything outside of that so it feels boxed in. I would liken it to playing a game in the dark.
I agree about the movement. I have a lot of fun playing on my quest 2. Fortunately I don’t have any problem with motion sickness so i can turn on joystick movement because it’s better to me than the teleporting but still kind of weird.
One cool thing I’m looking forward to is house scale be games. I’m perfectly fine with the constraints those impose due to being able to just walk around
One cool thing I’m looking forward to is house scale be games. I’m perfectly fine with the constraints those impose due to being able to just walk around
> As for "killer apps", honestly, I have never really believed in the concept. There's nothing on my smartphone that I can't do without it being specifically on my smartphone. But combined, the whole ecosystem is extremely useful. My smartphone also isn't the seamless digital assistant Jobs predicted it would be, but it's still extremely useful. Back in 2008, most people thought smartphones weren't for them, but now most find them extremely useful.
Smart phones are portable web browsers. That's the killer app. That's immensely useful. VR is non portable, at least in the sense that you're gonna look like a huge asshole loading up your quest on the subway. That's a pretty difficult barrier.
Smart phones are portable web browsers. That's the killer app. That's immensely useful. VR is non portable, at least in the sense that you're gonna look like a huge asshole loading up your quest on the subway. That's a pretty difficult barrier.
My point was not that smartphones aren't great. My point was that the whole "killer app" discussion is broken.
If you took away my smartphone today, I'd be pretty upset. It'd leave a whole of convenience in my life. But I'd ultimately adapt and continue living largely the same way I'm living now.
If you took away my PC today, my career would be over. I'd have to find a whole new way to live.
"Killer app" discussions tend to devolve into essentialism arguments. What's essential to one person is a frivoloty to others. But I don't think any of that matters. Game consoles are clearly not essential, yet they're big business. Some people gotta have a huge TV in their living room with cable and all the streaming services, others are fine just watching DVDs, still others are fine with no TV. Yet nobody is arguing that game consoles or TVs shouldn't exist just because they aren't universally appealing. So why VR? What is it about VR that evokes these responses "it's dead/dying/should die?"
If you took away my smartphone today, I'd be pretty upset. It'd leave a whole of convenience in my life. But I'd ultimately adapt and continue living largely the same way I'm living now.
If you took away my PC today, my career would be over. I'd have to find a whole new way to live.
"Killer app" discussions tend to devolve into essentialism arguments. What's essential to one person is a frivoloty to others. But I don't think any of that matters. Game consoles are clearly not essential, yet they're big business. Some people gotta have a huge TV in their living room with cable and all the streaming services, others are fine just watching DVDs, still others are fine with no TV. Yet nobody is arguing that game consoles or TVs shouldn't exist just because they aren't universally appealing. So why VR? What is it about VR that evokes these responses "it's dead/dying/should die?"
Killer app does not mean you would die without it. It means the app is so good that you would buy the hardware just for that app.
VR isn't dead, but it has no killer apps. It has no obvious path to be the next smart phone. Video game consoles have plenty of killer apps. It's the games.
VR games aren't that great, and the claim seems to be that they're going to be the next big social platform / computer tech rather than a game console alternative.
I own an index to play phasmophobia and beat saber. I'm very pessimistic about the tech's ability to become mainstream.
VR isn't dead, but it has no killer apps. It has no obvious path to be the next smart phone. Video game consoles have plenty of killer apps. It's the games.
VR games aren't that great, and the claim seems to be that they're going to be the next big social platform / computer tech rather than a game console alternative.
I own an index to play phasmophobia and beat saber. I'm very pessimistic about the tech's ability to become mainstream.
Why would we need to take VR headsets out into the world? Is this an issue for the fridges killer app of keeping things cold?
Mass adoption of VR headsets is not the goal of the industry I don't think, it has a niche use case that only it can achieve and that is plenty enough. It's just one tool.
If ever there were to be a technology that replaces smartphones it might be AR, but I doubt that too.
Mass adoption of VR headsets is not the goal of the industry I don't think, it has a niche use case that only it can achieve and that is plenty enough. It's just one tool.
If ever there were to be a technology that replaces smartphones it might be AR, but I doubt that too.
mass adoption is clearly the goal of meta
Perhaps that's where my thinking gets unstuck, in my mind Meta is adjacent to the existing VR industry. Their goals don't seem to align with what VR has so far tried to achieve. I know how silly that sounds, considering they're so closely related, but it's almost an uncanny valley representation of what VR already is.
> I have worked in the VR industry full time for the last 5 years
Maybe this results in having a distorted vision of what VR represents for people out there. Just like everyone else who works on a specific business for a long time.
Maybe this results in having a distorted vision of what VR represents for people out there. Just like everyone else who works on a specific business for a long time.
If you want to know anything about VR, why would you talk to someone who knows nothing about VR?
What is it with our culture that expertise is viewed as a conflict of interest? Flat-eathers scoff at astronomers. A teacher tells some parents their kid is having trouble in a subject and the parents blow up. There's a small band of entitled truckers out here making folks late to pick up their kids from school because they think they know better about vaccines than doctors.
A user only knows their own, subjective experience. As a developer, I collect feedback from many users.
What is it with our culture that expertise is viewed as a conflict of interest? Flat-eathers scoff at astronomers. A teacher tells some parents their kid is having trouble in a subject and the parents blow up. There's a small band of entitled truckers out here making folks late to pick up their kids from school because they think they know better about vaccines than doctors.
A user only knows their own, subjective experience. As a developer, I collect feedback from many users.
Astronomy is a science with objective facts. You’re suggesting VR enthusiasts are the experts on whether VR is good.
I'm not suggesting that at all. My post was a reply to a list of "problems", arguing they weren't actually all that important of problems. I also listed real problems we face.
I'm the lead developer on a project targeted at everyday people. I survey and interview these people about problems they have with our software and the hardware. I have real insight into the things people complain about and praise most often.
I didn't come in here and say "VR good. You dumb." The problems GP listed indicate a profound lack of good-faith experience with the technology.
I'm the lead developer on a project targeted at everyday people. I survey and interview these people about problems they have with our software and the hardware. I have real insight into the things people complain about and praise most often.
I didn't come in here and say "VR good. You dumb." The problems GP listed indicate a profound lack of good-faith experience with the technology.
I did, until my kid started playing it a few months ago and that was all he wanted to do all day, every day. Then, he completely lost interest and hasn't used it in weeks, so I'm back where I started.
I think it’s an example of why companies need mature governance models.
It’s cool tech, but it seems like it’s boiled down to Second Life + helmet graphics.
It’s cool tech, but it seems like it’s boiled down to Second Life + helmet graphics.
A very large body of HMDs have OLED displays, which have "true" blacks.
[deleted]
If you're interested I'm the original Infocom text adventures, the "Eaten by a Grue" podcast does an analysis of one game peer episode. The first half of each episode is spoiler-free so you can enjoy the content before you've played through.
https://monsterfeet.com/grue/
https://monsterfeet.com/grue/
I would like to see this happen for other games like the old Inform game Trinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(video_game)
I'm literally playing Trinity on an emulator right now. Not sure how I missed it back in the 80's but I'm really enjoying it. I'm stuck on the satellite door. Don't spoil it! Playing text adventures requires far more willpower today since the answers are easily accessible via the Internet. Not giving in to cheating really makes it feel old-school.
Ken’s book “Not All Fairy Tales Have Happy Endings” was a nice read: https://kensbook.com/faq/
Audible version is great, too. https://www.audible.com/pd/Not-All-Fairy-Tales-Have-Happy-En...
I am really hoping for some Mixed-Up Mother Goose dirt (the first game I ever played on the Apple II in 1992)
What, with your bare hands?!
> use computer
You don't know how
> pick manual
You have the manual
> read manual
You now know how to use a computer
> use computer
Your hands are busy
> drop manual
> use computer
... except funnier
You don't know how
> pick manual
You have the manual
> read manual
You now know how to use a computer
> use computer
Your hands are busy
> drop manual
> use computer
... except funnier
> I know Kung Fu
Show me
Show me
Things like this do happen to an extent in VR games, which is funny.
A classic example would be opening a locked door to which you have a key in, say, a zelda game. On a controller you just go over to it and press A. In VR you may need to sheathe your sword to draw the key and put away your shield to steady the door knob to unlock it and then push open the door and then pick up your weapons again.
The whole "Pick up your weapons again" loop at the end of little interactions is common in many games and is more involved than in traditional games that would abstract it.
A classic example would be opening a locked door to which you have a key in, say, a zelda game. On a controller you just go over to it and press A. In VR you may need to sheathe your sword to draw the key and put away your shield to steady the door knob to unlock it and then push open the door and then pick up your weapons again.
The whole "Pick up your weapons again" loop at the end of little interactions is common in many games and is more involved than in traditional games that would abstract it.
What a concept! ;)
I grew up on those Sierra adventure games -- LucasArts too!
Would love to see these (and the Williams) come back in any form.
Would love to see these (and the Williams) come back in any form.
Off topic, but I was just watching an interview with those two about some of the games that they developed at Sierra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAemLilaNjk
I wish Ken & Roberta would work on a new 2D pixel art point&click game.
Doing VR well takes a lot of effort, which would be better spent on story and creating beautiful pixel art - which somehow has a richness that VR can't seem to replicate (yet).
Doing VR well takes a lot of effort, which would be better spent on story and creating beautiful pixel art - which somehow has a richness that VR can't seem to replicate (yet).
Related:
Roberta Williams, the Queen of Graphic Adventure Video Games - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30781307 - March 2022 (no comments yet)
Roberta Williams, the Queen of Graphic Adventure Video Games - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30781307 - March 2022 (no comments yet)
Initial promotional footage is... not very impressive.
https://twitter.com/colossalcave3d/status/150637770280619622...
https://twitter.com/colossalcave3d/status/150637770280619622...
I really hope we will die a lot in this game...
Like in the good old times [1]
[1]: https://youtu.be/KLPXP5KkcMQ
[1]: https://youtu.be/KLPXP5KkcMQ
I'm actually thinking it makes a lot of sense to convert those dungeon crawlers (Dungeon Master for example) to VR. I'm wondering how much work is needed. One definitely needs to remodel the whole world and create new models for the monsters and items so it's essentially making a whole new game, plus a lot of gameplay code needs to be "converted" to VR. And how does one limit the actions of players in VR?
I think VR and text adventurers are at an odd crossroads. Text adventures are noteworthy for what they let you do with an unlimited interface. But it's also noteworthy in what you CANNOT do. In VR there's a lot of things you can't explicitly forbid trying to do, namely anything that's somewhat physical in your nearby space.
I just don't see VR going mainstream for gaming. I think there is a certain degree of tactile feedback that gamers look for when gaming that they get from a controller or a keyboard and mouse. It will reach a niche audience and I think that most likely be millennials.
It will never work for greybeards like me with Vertigo ;)
It will never work for greybeards like me with Vertigo ;)
I get uncomfortably sweaty after 10 minutes, but maybe that depends on fit.
It makes a fair difference if you add a fan into your headset: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2021/08/a-fan-for-the-valve-in...
Have you tried an Oculus? I have vertigo too and am a graybeard and it doesn't bother me at all. They did a good job with the refresh rate. Other VR headsets do still bother me, so they did something right (at least for me) on the Oculus.
I've started playing Kings quest 2 with the kids and oh my the amount of deaths. I had forgotten the pixel perfect walking needed not to plunge to your death. Kids are enjoying it though since they get all the fairy tale references.
I really hope they make use of the Steam Audio API in the game, which can simulate sound reflections, occlusion, reverb, and HRTF directional positioning to the listener for sound sources. Would make a ton of sense for a cave environment.
Dark Crystal (from their company) ruined adventure games for me. Later I found a cheat book and turns out you had to type a totally non-obvious command (LISTEN STREAM) in a specific location to unlock the rest of the game. No fun.
The Old Man Murray piece "Death of Adventure Games" sums up my feelings on the genre.
>Who killed Adventure Games? I think it should be pretty clear at this point that Adventure Games committed suicide.
https://oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html
>Who killed Adventure Games? I think it should be pretty clear at this point that Adventure Games committed suicide.
https://oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html
Is there anywhere to play the original colossal cave adventure?
Linux: install bsdgames, type down "advent".
All: Get a Z-Machine interpreter (Frotz/Winfrotz/Lectrote) and "advent.z5" from here:
https://ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/zcode/Advent.z5
All: Get a Z-Machine interpreter (Frotz/Winfrotz/Lectrote) and "advent.z5" from here:
https://ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/zcode/Advent.z5
Slash and Axl reunited. Ken and Roberta Williams making a game. What's next? _why reappears on TikTok?
It's a very oldschool fantasy text adventure which, by today's standards, requires a lot of patience, but it created a genre and inspired games like Zork (and by extension Infocom), and Adventure for the 2600, which itself inspired many other games.
Rick Adams has a great website dedicated to it with a lot of history and fun facts (https://rickadams.org/adventure/), and you can play the game directly on the site.
Very exciting to see the Sierra crew taking this on. It seems like a bizarre thing to adapt but I'm a big fan of them and the original.