A reality check for virtual headsets(economist.com)
economist.com
A reality check for virtual headsets
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21724863-vr-has-been-more-about-hype-substance-will-change-reality-check-virtual?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2017076n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/na/44954/n
118 comments
>To look at today's initial products and call the industry dead, or disappointing, is like looking at an MVP app release and deciding that an entire market does not exist because the initial solution is not perfect.
Maybe, but most MVPs also don't go anywhere, and lots of markets are fads and die. The question is why this is different for VR?
(And I've lived the previous VR fad, when it was going to revolutionize stuff back in early/mid 90s. What we have left from that era is the Lawnmower Man).
Maybe, but most MVPs also don't go anywhere, and lots of markets are fads and die. The question is why this is different for VR?
(And I've lived the previous VR fad, when it was going to revolutionize stuff back in early/mid 90s. What we have left from that era is the Lawnmower Man).
I've said all along that vr is closer to soundcards and 3D video cards than a new gaming platform. They're going to be toys for the rich and hobbyists until pcs just start being shipped with vr headsets out of the box.
> I've said all along that vr is closer to soundcards and 3D video cards than a new gaming platform. They're going to be toys for the rich and hobbyists
Lots of hobbyists (or rather say: gamers) were keen on getting a decent soundcard or 3D acceleration card - until it became very mainstream.
Lots of hobbyists (or rather say: gamers) were keen on getting a decent soundcard or 3D acceleration card - until it became very mainstream.
no matter how well you improve the headset, it will still be a headset.
it is not like a futuristic product that for now is too big or battery doesn't last, etc. it is by definition something nobody wants because it is exclusive, in the sense that only one person at a time can experience it and be completely cut off from the surroundings. and there is no way to solve that even in infinite interactions.
it migth work for teenager gamers and porn. who knows. but definitely will never see a huge adoption because it is inherently anti-social.
it is not like a futuristic product that for now is too big or battery doesn't last, etc. it is by definition something nobody wants because it is exclusive, in the sense that only one person at a time can experience it and be completely cut off from the surroundings. and there is no way to solve that even in infinite interactions.
it migth work for teenager gamers and porn. who knows. but definitely will never see a huge adoption because it is inherently anti-social.
The social aspect is a very large component of VR.
Last night I could have been alone after my wife and kids were in bed. Instead, I was in a 5-on-5 person zero-G battle akin to the Battle Arena in Ender's Game. Communication, coordination, and just trash talking are critical.
The night before I went on Star Trek missions with three friends (only one I had met in person). Despite them being from 3 different parts of the world, I could look around the bridge and see them right there. We may as well have been in the same room, with eye contact, body language, and hand gestures.
Facebook bought Oculus because of the pro-social opportunity to connect people worldwide. Though Spaces is early and a bit rough, it clearly demonstrates how compelling it is to have face-to-face talks with people inside and outside of VR.
Echo Arena: https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/22/lone-echos-vr-multiplayer...
Star Trek Bridge Crew: https://uploadvr.com/star-trek-bridge-crew-review/
Facebook Spaces: https://www.facebook.com/spaces
Last night I could have been alone after my wife and kids were in bed. Instead, I was in a 5-on-5 person zero-G battle akin to the Battle Arena in Ender's Game. Communication, coordination, and just trash talking are critical.
The night before I went on Star Trek missions with three friends (only one I had met in person). Despite them being from 3 different parts of the world, I could look around the bridge and see them right there. We may as well have been in the same room, with eye contact, body language, and hand gestures.
Facebook bought Oculus because of the pro-social opportunity to connect people worldwide. Though Spaces is early and a bit rough, it clearly demonstrates how compelling it is to have face-to-face talks with people inside and outside of VR.
Echo Arena: https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/22/lone-echos-vr-multiplayer...
Star Trek Bridge Crew: https://uploadvr.com/star-trek-bridge-crew-review/
Facebook Spaces: https://www.facebook.com/spaces
The same could be said about mobile phones. Take public transport and look around. Odds are most everyone is staring at their phone screen. Antisocial technology. You think if they could strap on a headset, ignore the strangers around them, and be in a virtual room together with their friends, they wouldn't do it?
If quality VR were available at a price point similar to a phone, comfortable to wear for hours at a time, I have no doubt many people would get one. If it also comes with quality AR, most will probably never take them off.
If quality VR were available at a price point similar to a phone, comfortable to wear for hours at a time, I have no doubt many people would get one. If it also comes with quality AR, most will probably never take them off.
> Odds are most everyone is staring at their phone screen. Antisocial technology.
Except many of these people are using their phones to connect with other people. Literally the opposite of "antisocial technology".
Except many of these people are using their phones to connect with other people. Literally the opposite of "antisocial technology".
That was kind of my point. Phones and VR are anti-social in that they allow you to ignore your current surroundings; but they are also pro-social in that they allow you to virtually interact with other people.
That's why I believe VR will become mainstream as soon as the technical challenges are solved, just like phones.
That's why I believe VR will become mainstream as soon as the technical challenges are solved, just like phones.
There's no reason why VR experiences shouldn't be social inside VR. Many of the available games are.
The problem with this rebuttal is there's no argument you can't apply it to. Try making it falsifiable. The first Rift Dev Kits landed in 2013. At what point can we look at uptake of these products and conclude that they're not catching on? I have no trouble with the argument that 2017 is too early. But what year won't be too early? 2020?
As for investors, it's important to remember that when you're swinging at a pitch, it's no more productive to swing too early than to swing too late. They're both strikes.
As for investors, it's important to remember that when you're swinging at a pitch, it's no more productive to swing too early than to swing too late. They're both strikes.
We have a gen 1 technology that you strap on your face and you literally feel like you're somewhere else. You look down and see your hands; glance across the table and see, and talk to, and interact with, another person that's really across the globe; you can build a world and inhabit it.
And we're discussing when to call it a failure. On a site called Hacker News. OK. But that's kind of my point - people can be so focused on "calling failure" that they miss the incredibly transformative development that's right in front of them.
Regarding a "timeline for calling failure" - who knows? Sometimes success comes to the sole believer who labors on long after everyone else abandoned hope. But how often in tech is something truly a failure? Was AI a failure in the 60's? It brought us LISP and defined the space. The 80's? It brought important foundational work to CNNs. The 90's? Would we be here without Deep Blue? Was mobile a failure with WAP? Palm? Newton? Was Internet 1.0 a failure when the bubble burst in 2000?
All were important steps that got us to our ubiquitously interconnected, AI-enabled, device-driven present.
So why the focus on identifying something as a failure, or tagging the moment that "they're not catching on"? How are you defining success? Adoption? If so, based on what metric - and at what ramp - and based on whose expectations? Investment success? For whom?
Even if this generation of VR fails to gain traction, I truly believe it will be viewed as just one more step towards the inevitable. It's that good.
But my point is that such failure will be due more to social issues than technical ones.
And we're discussing when to call it a failure. On a site called Hacker News. OK. But that's kind of my point - people can be so focused on "calling failure" that they miss the incredibly transformative development that's right in front of them.
Regarding a "timeline for calling failure" - who knows? Sometimes success comes to the sole believer who labors on long after everyone else abandoned hope. But how often in tech is something truly a failure? Was AI a failure in the 60's? It brought us LISP and defined the space. The 80's? It brought important foundational work to CNNs. The 90's? Would we be here without Deep Blue? Was mobile a failure with WAP? Palm? Newton? Was Internet 1.0 a failure when the bubble burst in 2000?
All were important steps that got us to our ubiquitously interconnected, AI-enabled, device-driven present.
So why the focus on identifying something as a failure, or tagging the moment that "they're not catching on"? How are you defining success? Adoption? If so, based on what metric - and at what ramp - and based on whose expectations? Investment success? For whom?
Even if this generation of VR fails to gain traction, I truly believe it will be viewed as just one more step towards the inevitable. It's that good.
But my point is that such failure will be due more to social issues than technical ones.
But this is not gen 1. Even HMDs we had in 90s were not gen 1. This tech is old. Gen 1 was in early 80s. We are on gen 5 now, probably. It has not taken off before, there is no reason to think it will take off now. We've got better graphics each gen but otherwise it's the same. Televisions had crappy graphics initially but people bought them nevertheless. Game consoles had crappy graphics but people bought them nevertheless. Digital cameras had crappy graphics but people bought them nevertheless. Do you think people did not buy VR before because of crappy graphics but are going to buy them now all of sudden or sometime in the future when graphics will be even better?
Let's call it the first iteration of this generation then. (And incidentally, Gen 1 wasn't in the early 80's, it was in 1968[1]). There have been incremental improvements in VR throughout the history of computer science, much as there has been for many technologies. At some point, the technology catches up to the vision and it becomes viable. That's where we are today.
It's not merely graphics that make today's VR better than VR in the 90's - and actually viable. There has been a confluence of enabling technologies including:
- High bandwidth internet - High DPI OLED screens - Development of VR-specific techniques such as low-persistence pixel strobing, rolling shutters, pre-warped images, asynchronous reprojection, etc. - Computer vision developments for 6 degree of freedom tracking - Submillimeter tracking of room position for the VR user and his/her hands - Fast GPUs to allow for consistent 90 frame per second display - Cheap precision manufacturing for complex systems - Lens technologies - Lightweight materials - Capacitive touch technologies to enable finger tracking - High bandwidth I/O ports (USB3, HDMI) - Fast, cheap CPUs - Widely available Graphics engines and toolkits to accelerate and democratize content development
None of the above were available in 1998.
Yes, one important result is better graphics, but the sum total of the above is an experience where your brain forgets it's inside a simulation. This comes from low "motion to photon" latency such that your movements track 1:1 with the virtual world, "good enough" graphics (but could be better), a wide enough field of view (but could be wider), and so on.
People didn't buy VR in the 80's, or 90's, or 00's, because it sucked. The technology wasn't there. That is no longer the case.
Future iterations in this generation will widen the field of view, further improve pixel density and brightness, lower weight, reduce cost, and increase portability - all important evolutionary steps that incrementally improve the experience.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Damocles_(virtual...
It's not merely graphics that make today's VR better than VR in the 90's - and actually viable. There has been a confluence of enabling technologies including:
- High bandwidth internet - High DPI OLED screens - Development of VR-specific techniques such as low-persistence pixel strobing, rolling shutters, pre-warped images, asynchronous reprojection, etc. - Computer vision developments for 6 degree of freedom tracking - Submillimeter tracking of room position for the VR user and his/her hands - Fast GPUs to allow for consistent 90 frame per second display - Cheap precision manufacturing for complex systems - Lens technologies - Lightweight materials - Capacitive touch technologies to enable finger tracking - High bandwidth I/O ports (USB3, HDMI) - Fast, cheap CPUs - Widely available Graphics engines and toolkits to accelerate and democratize content development
None of the above were available in 1998.
Yes, one important result is better graphics, but the sum total of the above is an experience where your brain forgets it's inside a simulation. This comes from low "motion to photon" latency such that your movements track 1:1 with the virtual world, "good enough" graphics (but could be better), a wide enough field of view (but could be wider), and so on.
People didn't buy VR in the 80's, or 90's, or 00's, because it sucked. The technology wasn't there. That is no longer the case.
Future iterations in this generation will widen the field of view, further improve pixel density and brightness, lower weight, reduce cost, and increase portability - all important evolutionary steps that incrementally improve the experience.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Damocles_(virtual...
No need to list random buzzwords, e.g. finger tracking had been a big deal in 80s, Nintendo even released the Power Glove with it. Same argument applies to every failed technology from the same period. FMV games? Oh, we have Extremely High Bandwidth Video Compression From The Future, 4 Layer Blu-ray, Very Sensitive Cameras, 4k Displays with HDR, Internet (of course) and powerful computers capable of editing video in real time. Surely their revival is around the corner. People did not play them because the looked bad, but now we can make them look better!
The problem is not in the technology. It's in the content. When the current adopters will start using the systems they already have semi-regularly then and only then I can agree it has a chance.
The problem is not in the technology. It's in the content. When the current adopters will start using the systems they already have semi-regularly then and only then I can agree it has a chance.
it is not about the graphics, it is about the content
Those who say there is no VR content typically do not own a major headset. There are at least 236 VR apps on Steam[1], well over 300 on the Oculus Store for Rift (I stopped counting after 300 - click "show all" under Browse All at the link below)[2], more for GearVR, and more for PlayStation. Many of these are duplicates, but not all. There are multiple other stores, including WEARVR.com, itch.io, Viveport, the Oculus GearVR store, Google Play store, PlayStation Store, and others.
Numerous 360 video portals and creators present and produce content including BBC, Disney, National Geographic, New York Times, etc. VR tie-ins to feature films include Spiderman Homecoming, John Wick, Games of Thrones, and many others.
Companies such as Volkswagen use VR for training and development. SIs such as Accenture have built practices to support enterprise adoption of VR and AR technology for manufacturing, training, and advertising.
Though a lot of content includes thin "experiences," there are so many high quality, rich applications and games that a backlog (more content than time) is a common problem for working adults. Oculus alone will be publishing a major game each month through the end of the year. Fallout, Skyrim, and other game titles are getting the VR treatment as well.
Content is not the problem. The outdated perception of a lack of content is a huge problem.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/vr/#p=0&tab=TopSellers [2] https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/ [3] https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/en/detailpage/-/de...
Numerous 360 video portals and creators present and produce content including BBC, Disney, National Geographic, New York Times, etc. VR tie-ins to feature films include Spiderman Homecoming, John Wick, Games of Thrones, and many others.
Companies such as Volkswagen use VR for training and development. SIs such as Accenture have built practices to support enterprise adoption of VR and AR technology for manufacturing, training, and advertising.
Though a lot of content includes thin "experiences," there are so many high quality, rich applications and games that a backlog (more content than time) is a common problem for working adults. Oculus alone will be publishing a major game each month through the end of the year. Fallout, Skyrim, and other game titles are getting the VR treatment as well.
Content is not the problem. The outdated perception of a lack of content is a huge problem.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/vr/#p=0&tab=TopSellers [2] https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/ [3] https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/en/detailpage/-/de...
Exactly. TVs, game consoles and digital cameras I mentioned were sold as devices to consume and produce content people wanted. The current VR push is "Look how awesome the technology is now! Surely somebody will make a lot of tasty content for it. Any time now. Why would not you buy a set so you are ready when the content hits? It's coming. Get your set now so you won't have to wait in lines when the content will finally appear and everyone will rush the stores. This will happen. Just be prepared. Any minute now."
If you get a chance to play SUPERHOT VR, do. It's the best VR game I've ever played. The only drawback is the cost of the rig needed to play it.
And here is another issue. The content to sell VR cannot be hyped by "try it!". You want to sell VR to someone who has not bought it yet so there is no time/content restricted "demo version" route. You cannot demo it in Bestbuy either (I don't know many people willing to put a public use mask on their faces). If a 2D video does not sell it then the only channel left is through friends and family. Do you have friends coming over just to play SUPERHOT VR?
Many companies use disposable covers[1] when doing demos at conferences. I'm not sure if Best Buy uses them for their demos as well (which are available at many stores), but generally companies do address the hygiene problem.
[1] https://vrcover.com/product/htc-vive-disposable-hygiene-cove...
[1] https://vrcover.com/product/htc-vive-disposable-hygiene-cove...
It's already being demoed in Microsoft stores, actually.
> We've got better graphics each gen but otherwise it's the same.
No it's not. The big differentiator this time is not graphics (though they're vastly improved) but reduced latency and lag and more accurate head tracking. That's the key to making it feel immersive an making it less likely that people will throw up.
No it's not. The big differentiator this time is not graphics (though they're vastly improved) but reduced latency and lag and more accurate head tracking. That's the key to making it feel immersive an making it less likely that people will throw up.
Lots of technologies had very difficult and drawn-out gestations, where the promise was far greater than the reality. Cars were slower, more expensive and less reliable than horse-drawn carriages for several decades. Several huge advances were required to turn Karl Benz's rattling deathtrap into a practical means of transport. Marconi first made radio transmissions in 1895, but it took until 1920 for practical radio broadcasts to start. Radio was a niche technology for telegraph companies and a weird gimmick for hobbyists until the triode valve arrived.
VR is a much harder problem than the 80s pioneers expected. Previous display technologies "worked" for VR, but they gave you neckache and/or severe nausea after a few minutes. We needed a breakthrough in lightweight, high-resolution, low-persistence, low-cost displays. That breakthrough arrived when Samsung started putting OLED displays in the Galaxy series smartphones.
We finally have headsets that really work - headsets that provide immersive experiences, headsets that can be worn for more than a few minutes at a time. We've got GPUs that can push pixels fast enough to maintain a stable 90fps. We still have a huge way to go, but I think it's far too early to declare VR as vapourware or a technological dead-end. We're only just getting started.
VR is a much harder problem than the 80s pioneers expected. Previous display technologies "worked" for VR, but they gave you neckache and/or severe nausea after a few minutes. We needed a breakthrough in lightweight, high-resolution, low-persistence, low-cost displays. That breakthrough arrived when Samsung started putting OLED displays in the Galaxy series smartphones.
We finally have headsets that really work - headsets that provide immersive experiences, headsets that can be worn for more than a few minutes at a time. We've got GPUs that can push pixels fast enough to maintain a stable 90fps. We still have a huge way to go, but I think it's far too early to declare VR as vapourware or a technological dead-end. We're only just getting started.
> "Televisions had crappy graphics initially but people bought them nevertheless."
Television emerged as a broadcast medium in the 1920s, but didn't become mainstream until the 1950s. I wouldn't say that's a particular good example of fast adoption (or at least, not significantly faster than VR).
Television emerged as a broadcast medium in the 1920s, but didn't become mainstream until the 1950s. I wouldn't say that's a particular good example of fast adoption (or at least, not significantly faster than VR).
VR has been around at least as long as TV had by the time it became mainstream in the 1950s, without—and with little sign of this changing imminently—equivalent uptake.
Do you have any VR gear? How often would you honestly say you use it?
I have a Rift, and use it two to three times a week. I would use it more, but I have very little discretionary time.
I would say VR consumes about 50% to 75% of my free entertainment time.
If the resolution was a bit higher, I would probably do a few hours of work per day in VR as well. I find I'm fairly focused when working in VR as I have no environmental distractions yet can be in very peaceful surroundings (Mars, space, a balcony overlooking city lights, etc.).
I use an app called Big Screen to bring up my desktop in VR. Interestingly, it's multi-user so others could co-work in the same environment, look over my shoulder at my screen, talk, etc. even from across the world - if I had colleagues with an HMD and wanted to collaborate with them, of course (so much for the focus and serenity part of it!)
I would say VR consumes about 50% to 75% of my free entertainment time.
If the resolution was a bit higher, I would probably do a few hours of work per day in VR as well. I find I'm fairly focused when working in VR as I have no environmental distractions yet can be in very peaceful surroundings (Mars, space, a balcony overlooking city lights, etc.).
I use an app called Big Screen to bring up my desktop in VR. Interestingly, it's multi-user so others could co-work in the same environment, look over my shoulder at my screen, talk, etc. even from across the world - if I had colleagues with an HMD and wanted to collaborate with them, of course (so much for the focus and serenity part of it!)
Do you have a fliphone? How often would you honestly say you check the weather with it?
This comment thread should be its own HN post.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is that a criticism or a compliment?
The dev kits were dev kits. For developers. Just because you could go onto a web site and buy them doesn't mean that VR was released.
I think we can conclude it's not going to catch on once they have delivered on the promise of VR and then the market goes meh.
The Rift and Vive (the only VR worth anything) are both very far towards the early adopter side of the spectrum and I think everything follows from that. They are expensive, difficult to set up and keep working, and have expensive dependencies. Prototype hardware already exists that shows all those problems are tractable.
So to me the question is only does VR run out of money before it develops a viable product. Sure there is some small question of what the market will think of what VR has to offer, but when you offer it to people for "free" the reaction is uniformly positive. The only barrier is cost and convenience and whether those lines intersect with the cost to produce VR in time (or ever).
I think those lines will intersect as you can do it on hardware that is O(mobile phone) in cost. Just not actual mobile phones. Those are trash for VR.
I think it's really unlikely that the in four years the market will be so small as to support zero VR. I think it's comparable to the first iPhone which was really not that great.
I know I will use and keep buying VR displays forever even if they freeze at the current level of technology. Even when someone is offering me 16k OLED 2d displays with 240hz refresh rates. There is no substitute for a fully tracked POV and proper depth perception.
I think we can conclude it's not going to catch on once they have delivered on the promise of VR and then the market goes meh.
The Rift and Vive (the only VR worth anything) are both very far towards the early adopter side of the spectrum and I think everything follows from that. They are expensive, difficult to set up and keep working, and have expensive dependencies. Prototype hardware already exists that shows all those problems are tractable.
So to me the question is only does VR run out of money before it develops a viable product. Sure there is some small question of what the market will think of what VR has to offer, but when you offer it to people for "free" the reaction is uniformly positive. The only barrier is cost and convenience and whether those lines intersect with the cost to produce VR in time (or ever).
I think those lines will intersect as you can do it on hardware that is O(mobile phone) in cost. Just not actual mobile phones. Those are trash for VR.
I think it's really unlikely that the in four years the market will be so small as to support zero VR. I think it's comparable to the first iPhone which was really not that great.
I know I will use and keep buying VR displays forever even if they freeze at the current level of technology. Even when someone is offering me 16k OLED 2d displays with 240hz refresh rates. There is no substitute for a fully tracked POV and proper depth perception.
The first iPhone was expensive and limited, but it inarguably caught fire with a group way bigger than early adopters. No comparison. They sold 1 million in 74 days.
The iPhone was the point at which the mobile computer finally got traction after 30+ years of prototypes and product sold to early adopters (palm pilot, windows ce, danger hiptop, etc...). Furthermore the iPhone was significantly cheaper than a VR setup is today and the iPhone was heavily subsidized.
What type of hardware enables VR at a similar cost to a phone?
A flagship phone costs 6-800$. The Rift was selling at Best Buy with a 150$ gift card for 600$. And that is with a bunch of extra hardware (two cameras, tracked controllers, xbox controller, remote) and packaging that probably won't be in gen 2 VR.
So your expectation of what existing VR hardware costs is probably a little off. Let's say that you have a BOM of 500$ to make a Rift. That's 100-300$ to spend on a battery, mobile GPU/CPU and memory, cameras, and associated cooling and packaging. It's within the realm of reason at the 800$ price point.
I think the reality is that BOM will shift around quite a bit. VR might stall at the current level of fidelity for a while (which is fine IMO), but ease of use and price can be improved quite a bit.
Even since launch the cost of the full Rift setup has decreased quite a bit. 1/2 to 1/3rd although I would have to really think harder about what a realistic number is.
So your expectation of what existing VR hardware costs is probably a little off. Let's say that you have a BOM of 500$ to make a Rift. That's 100-300$ to spend on a battery, mobile GPU/CPU and memory, cameras, and associated cooling and packaging. It's within the realm of reason at the 800$ price point.
I think the reality is that BOM will shift around quite a bit. VR might stall at the current level of fidelity for a while (which is fine IMO), but ease of use and price can be improved quite a bit.
Even since launch the cost of the full Rift setup has decreased quite a bit. 1/2 to 1/3rd although I would have to really think harder about what a realistic number is.
What about pocketable computers? They have been envisioned decades before they became possible and then usable. It wouldn't have served any purpose to have designated an expiry data on the whole idea back in seventies.
VR may take 4 year or 40 years to mature, or it may never take off at all, it's not something we can judge either way.
VR may take 4 year or 40 years to mature, or it may never take off at all, it's not something we can judge either way.
I think that's a good comparison. The difference between the first portable computers and what we have today is massive. If AR/VR technologies evolve that way then what we'll have 30 years from now will be almost totally unrecognizable. It may not even involve a headset, or even glasses.
Here are the qualities (IMHO) that will need to be met for a consumer grade VR device to become widely successful:
- It needs to be at a price point akin to a tablet computer
- It needs to be able to run for more than an hour without overheating
- It needs full 6dof head tracking and ideally 6dof controller tracking with motion to photon latency comparable to vive/rift
- It needs to be comfortable to wear for an hour for most people
- It needs to deliver a graphical experience on par with something like a PS2 or PS3
- It needs to be portable and wireless so it can be passed around and shown off to others easily
- Most importantly, it needs to be simple to set up and use. Ie, no external computer, no wires, no mounting of sensors on walls, no need to plug or unplug devices before/after use, etc.
No such device exists on the market today but many of them will exist soon. Choose any one VR device out there today and it will meet a subset of these but not all of them.
If devices meeting these specs don't have some form of mainstream appeal a year of the first release then I'll be revisiting my assumptions about VR. (I have been working in VR for the last 3 years)
- It needs to be at a price point akin to a tablet computer
- It needs to be able to run for more than an hour without overheating
- It needs full 6dof head tracking and ideally 6dof controller tracking with motion to photon latency comparable to vive/rift
- It needs to be comfortable to wear for an hour for most people
- It needs to deliver a graphical experience on par with something like a PS2 or PS3
- It needs to be portable and wireless so it can be passed around and shown off to others easily
- Most importantly, it needs to be simple to set up and use. Ie, no external computer, no wires, no mounting of sensors on walls, no need to plug or unplug devices before/after use, etc.
No such device exists on the market today but many of them will exist soon. Choose any one VR device out there today and it will meet a subset of these but not all of them.
If devices meeting these specs don't have some form of mainstream appeal a year of the first release then I'll be revisiting my assumptions about VR. (I have been working in VR for the last 3 years)
I've seen enough positive comments by users to believe it has potential for gaming, even if I have not convinced myself. Half the comments only were by prospective devs.
2003 is the year of Linux desktop!
I was at Facebook's F8 conference this year and to say they are pushing hard on VR is an understatement. Personally, I find VR and its potential applications very intriguing and I welcome this, but it all still feels.. I don't know.. very much top down and too early. I'm not sure if it's consumers driving demand for this, or the industry desperately looking for the 'next' platform 10 years on from the iPhone.
In contrast, it feels like the whole mobile app paradigm was a more emergent trend that rose from the hardware getting better and it being an 'obvious' thing to do with software on that hardware. Like, smartphones weren't designed specifically with apps in mind, but they emerged as a phenomenon naturally, in response to demand. But maybe that's just hindsight talking, maybe it too was ultimately pushed from the top down by companies building apps and promoting them. Hard to say I guess.
If any company can push VR into the mainstream, or at least accelerate the process, Facebook has to be one of the best positioned, and I hope it works. I just wonder if the hardware doesn't need to get dramatically (5 years) better before it becomes obvious that ordinary people will want to incorporate it into their daiy routine (and then, possibly more in AR form than VR form) - indeed, to be fair, at F8 a very similar message was delivered in some talks.
In contrast, it feels like the whole mobile app paradigm was a more emergent trend that rose from the hardware getting better and it being an 'obvious' thing to do with software on that hardware. Like, smartphones weren't designed specifically with apps in mind, but they emerged as a phenomenon naturally, in response to demand. But maybe that's just hindsight talking, maybe it too was ultimately pushed from the top down by companies building apps and promoting them. Hard to say I guess.
If any company can push VR into the mainstream, or at least accelerate the process, Facebook has to be one of the best positioned, and I hope it works. I just wonder if the hardware doesn't need to get dramatically (5 years) better before it becomes obvious that ordinary people will want to incorporate it into their daiy routine (and then, possibly more in AR form than VR form) - indeed, to be fair, at F8 a very similar message was delivered in some talks.
The chicken-and-egg problem with VR is numbers and quality content. So far the sales numbers of VR headsets to consumers did not convince major developers to make a major push. As a result, 95% of Steam VR titles are versions "My First Unity VR Project".
You'd think that device manufacturers would then subsidize content development to differentiate, but that didn't seem to pan out either http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/oculus-story-studio-shu...
You'd think that device manufacturers would then subsidize content development to differentiate, but that didn't seem to pan out either http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/oculus-story-studio-shu...
[deleted]
> to say they are pushing hard on VR is an understatement.
Well they do own Oculus, so they have a vested interest in making sure VR succeeds, whether it is a demand or not.
Well they do own Oculus, so they have a vested interest in making sure VR succeeds, whether it is a demand or not.
The issue is at the content side. 360 videos may give it a good push. That's user created content so it doesn't rely on studios like the 3D TV.
360 videos are a rather poor experience (currently). You cannot tell narrative content on them because you cannot control the view like you can with movies or shows. So what you are limited to is static scenery type of experiences.
Do you play modern computer games? There are "live" narrative sections in many games now. Cut scenes don't freeze the player anymore. You can turn around and stare at the scenery if you want to. In some cases the story keeps happening when you aren't watching, in some the action pauses at strategic moments and waits for you.
> There are "live" narrative sections in many games now.
Do they react to what the player is looking at or where they're standing? I think what the GP meant was that "you can't have David Attenborough going on about the lovely penguins whilst the user is staring at some polar bears."
Do they react to what the player is looking at or where they're standing? I think what the GP meant was that "you can't have David Attenborough going on about the lovely penguins whilst the user is staring at some polar bears."
Theater has survived for thousands of years without being able to control the view like you can with movies or shows. In terms of VR, I think the shark demo of PSVR already shows more than static scenery type of experiences can made.
Theater is almost exclusively carried out with pre-determined views: the audiences seating arrangements. Motion on stage is used to guide attention and frame the narrative.
The form of presentation impacts blocking and scene-changes. Theater in the round would result in different staging than a traditional auditorium, for example.
A 360 degree movie is essentially the inverse of the theater experience. Instead of fixed locations pointing towards the action, the viewer is in the center of the world with potential for action all around.
The form of presentation impacts blocking and scene-changes. Theater in the round would result in different staging than a traditional auditorium, for example.
A 360 degree movie is essentially the inverse of the theater experience. Instead of fixed locations pointing towards the action, the viewer is in the center of the world with potential for action all around.
Theater is much more than the stereotypical dark square room. Round arenas, street performances, they're pretty common. And even immersive plays are being done in many places nowadays.
People will pay attention to what's happening, there's no need to worry too much about someone simply ignoring the action. Besides, even casual YouTubers do positional sound nowadays, which can be used to "lead" the spectator.
People will pay attention to what's happening, there's no need to worry too much about someone simply ignoring the action. Besides, even casual YouTubers do positional sound nowadays, which can be used to "lead" the spectator.
I've been saying for some time that VR is the next 3D TV. I've tried VR systems from Jaron Lanier's original rig with two SGI workstations in the 1980s to the HTC Vibe. Technically, there's been plenty of progress. The lag problem has been fixed. The resolution is better. The headgear is still clunky.
There's still no killer app. You can play FPS games. Works fine, for people who like shooters. You can run roller coaster sims. Works fine, gets boring fast. You can visit Second Life. Kind of cool, if you like SL. You can visit High Fidelity, which is a higher-res Second Life where nothing is going on. Boring. (Worse, the High Fidelity CEO is now talking about "sovereign identity on the blockchain". If one branch of hype isn't working, pivot to another.)
VR conferencing? Working in High Fidelity and Second Life now. HF even has gaze tracking and facial gesture capture.
In the early days of VR, there was hope that VR would provide a more natural interface to CAD programs. Autodesk put effort into VR to try to make that work. Turned out that trying to do precision work in VR is not only difficult, but really tiring.
It's all been built, and nobody came. Best Buy is removing the Oculus Rift demo stations from stores due to lack of interest.
There's still no killer app. You can play FPS games. Works fine, for people who like shooters. You can run roller coaster sims. Works fine, gets boring fast. You can visit Second Life. Kind of cool, if you like SL. You can visit High Fidelity, which is a higher-res Second Life where nothing is going on. Boring. (Worse, the High Fidelity CEO is now talking about "sovereign identity on the blockchain". If one branch of hype isn't working, pivot to another.)
VR conferencing? Working in High Fidelity and Second Life now. HF even has gaze tracking and facial gesture capture.
In the early days of VR, there was hope that VR would provide a more natural interface to CAD programs. Autodesk put effort into VR to try to make that work. Turned out that trying to do precision work in VR is not only difficult, but really tiring.
It's all been built, and nobody came. Best Buy is removing the Oculus Rift demo stations from stores due to lack of interest.
I think it's better to compare VR to Ham Radio in that there's a hobbyist or niche interest but not enough to spawn a mainstream adoption of the technology. Even AR I think has a similar problem since it's all about making a market where no real demand exists. VR is cool in my opinion but it really isn't something I can see even my nieces and nephew using beyond once or twice in their lives. The games they play tend to be focused on the relaxation they bring with the ability to just lounge in the living room which VR breaks from that format of leisure. VR seems to take effort to consume and if you don't find that kind of effort relaxing then you're not likely to do it for a pass time or hobby. Frankly, I think too many in Silicon Valley assume their interests mirror the interests of non-Valley and non-technically-minded people.
All those uses you mention don't make exclusive use of VR features. Try some game like Climbey. It is the killer app for me and the only reason I reboot to windows almost every day, to play with a friend or alone.
Are you considering AR as a separate concern, or do you consider that one doomed to mediocrity as well?
Personally I think that features like virtual workspaces (e.g. multi-monitor displays / overlays) and HUDs (e.g. vehicle navigation) are going to be game-changing outside of the entertainment industry, when the headset tech gets to where it needs to be; this will probably be better implemented as an AR overlay (a la Hololens) than full VR.
Personally I think that features like virtual workspaces (e.g. multi-monitor displays / overlays) and HUDs (e.g. vehicle navigation) are going to be game-changing outside of the entertainment industry, when the headset tech gets to where it needs to be; this will probably be better implemented as an AR overlay (a la Hololens) than full VR.
I agree, I can't wait until we're all in VR desktop environments, which will I think open up really interesting new ways of personal computing and working.
Take for example software development. It has huge potential to improve how efficiently we can work together remotely. It is often difficult to communicate very well with remote team members, and to develop a rapport with them. But imagine if you could be pair programming right beside them, in a VR setting, pointing to some code in a floating IDE or something, and explaining to them how it works. Or you could pull up a virtual "white board" and start drawing maybe.
It could also go a long way to making work more comfortable. With your computer being just a VR headset, it would be easy to work in a laid back recliner, standing in your office, or even lying down.
Take for example software development. It has huge potential to improve how efficiently we can work together remotely. It is often difficult to communicate very well with remote team members, and to develop a rapport with them. But imagine if you could be pair programming right beside them, in a VR setting, pointing to some code in a floating IDE or something, and explaining to them how it works. Or you could pull up a virtual "white board" and start drawing maybe.
It could also go a long way to making work more comfortable. With your computer being just a VR headset, it would be easy to work in a laid back recliner, standing in your office, or even lying down.
AR is a separate line of development. Being able to label the real world has many use cases. There are many industrial applications. The big technical problem is getting location information good enough to register the annotations on the real world. That's not solved yet for big spaces.
In AR, the graphics don't have to be as good. Text and line drawing alone would be useful. This translates to less-clunky headgear. The Microsoft HoloLens is far less clunky than the HTC Vibe or Oculus Rift. Being able to walk an oil refinery or a server farm or a WalMart and have displays of what everything was and how it was doing would be valuable.
In AR, the graphics don't have to be as good. Text and line drawing alone would be useful. This translates to less-clunky headgear. The Microsoft HoloLens is far less clunky than the HTC Vibe or Oculus Rift. Being able to walk an oil refinery or a server farm or a WalMart and have displays of what everything was and how it was doing would be valuable.
For now the apps that aim for a kill are games. I've tried many VR games and I've only really liked one, Elite: Dangerous. I don't know if it's the killer app VR needs, probably not, but it's impressive and I truly felt transported to another world and that the technology has value, flaws too but value. I've never watched a 3D movie that made me feel the same.
I think VR and AR will be very big in the future. I don't know how long it will take. The current generation might fail for some understanding of the word but I think they are on to something.
I think VR and AR will be very big in the future. I don't know how long it will take. The current generation might fail for some understanding of the word but I think they are on to something.
Best Buy wasn't removing Rift demos, Oculus was. According to Oculus, it was because they targeted too many fringe stores instead of just key stores.
I like the comparison with 3D movies. Since (almost) the inception of moving pictures, there has been ways to do 3D movies. And every 20-30 years there has been a push toward 3D movies. It never really caught on.
Perspective[0] is a fabulous capacity (and Renaissance "invention" for artworks). Our eyes need 3D, but our brain is just fine with a bit of fake perspective.
PS: slightly tangential but, the only personal interest I have for VR is watching movies alone as if I were in an empty theater. I find it very cool.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
Perspective[0] is a fabulous capacity (and Renaissance "invention" for artworks). Our eyes need 3D, but our brain is just fine with a bit of fake perspective.
PS: slightly tangential but, the only personal interest I have for VR is watching movies alone as if I were in an empty theater. I find it very cool.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
I still remember when the original Nintendo came out in 1988. It was $149 for the system, the light gun + Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt. ($320 in today's dollars).
I don't think the NES would have succeeded as much as it did were it not for the Mario Brothers + Duck Hunt bundle. The light gun turned out to be a gimmick, but at the time it felt like such a huge technological leap over Atari, and Duck Hunt was the way to show it off.
VR needs a Duck Hunt + Mario Brothers.
I think Nintendo gets this. Wii had Wii Sports, the Nintendo Switch has Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
They're more than just games, they're brands that through their ubiquity generate cultural capital for the platform.
I don't think the NES would have succeeded as much as it did were it not for the Mario Brothers + Duck Hunt bundle. The light gun turned out to be a gimmick, but at the time it felt like such a huge technological leap over Atari, and Duck Hunt was the way to show it off.
VR needs a Duck Hunt + Mario Brothers.
I think Nintendo gets this. Wii had Wii Sports, the Nintendo Switch has Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
They're more than just games, they're brands that through their ubiquity generate cultural capital for the platform.
Maybe vr will turn out to be more like analog flight sticks than the NES.
Today, a vr rig, hotas controller setup and elite:dangerous already is a killer combination for vr. Put the price is steep and the appeal is much more narrow than Mario Bros.
[ed: personally I think vr will be more of a paradigm shift, than a game gimmick though. I think creative tools like tilt brush will combine with multi-user world's a la second life or croquet/open cobalt. And I think it'll grow a bit "top down" first: with early adopters and creators / developers.
But one thing that has to go are the wires - probably first by higher performance/watt and a move to "backpack pcs" to run the software.
Before that, Sony has the right idea: lower ambitions and let players sit in a sofa. Works fine for driving/simulators etc. ]
Today, a vr rig, hotas controller setup and elite:dangerous already is a killer combination for vr. Put the price is steep and the appeal is much more narrow than Mario Bros.
[ed: personally I think vr will be more of a paradigm shift, than a game gimmick though. I think creative tools like tilt brush will combine with multi-user world's a la second life or croquet/open cobalt. And I think it'll grow a bit "top down" first: with early adopters and creators / developers.
But one thing that has to go are the wires - probably first by higher performance/watt and a move to "backpack pcs" to run the software.
Before that, Sony has the right idea: lower ambitions and let players sit in a sofa. Works fine for driving/simulators etc. ]
I suppose an alternative to backpacks would be a hybrid solution with "smart" headsets (much like cardboard/daydream) and a tradeoff in cpu/bandwidth doing some work on the pc, and some on the headset - and streaming over wlan. But I don't know if that's really feasible wrt getting the latency low enough with a high quality display.
DisplayLink already has a working wireless adapter for the Vive. I've tried it, and it's really good. No need for gimmicky backback computers or non-replacable headset computers.
I thought the issue with current wireless technology was getting the latency down, in order to work with true ~90hz refresh (so when you tilt your head looking at the horizon, or move your head quickly the display updates in seemingly real-time, not showing you one or two frames of old data).
Is this still not an issue?
Is this still not an issue?
I think part of the magic with the NES was that you could plug it into your TV and it would just work.
I can only use a Vive if I have a high powered gaming computer in a place conducive to gaming.
I can only use a Vive if I have a high powered gaming computer in a place conducive to gaming.
Bingo!
You highlighted two major barriers of entry for the larger market: 1. Initial Cost 2. Technological knowledge required (to inform the purchase and to set it up)
Another point adding to the cost is that VR games of any quality [or by larger studios with resources for quality development] are new games, and as such usually run around 60 to 100 dollars each. And they don't just come on a disk you pop in and play.
Sidenote: Playstation VR, which is substantially easier to set up -- the headset is more expensive than the console at this stage. If you get the starter bundle it's almost 3x the cost of the console.
To many people, it's outrageous. And the argument would likely follow, "there just aren't that many good games for VR" or "I just bought a new 4k tv, why would I buy that _now_". (At least this is what I've heard so far)
You highlighted two major barriers of entry for the larger market: 1. Initial Cost 2. Technological knowledge required (to inform the purchase and to set it up)
Another point adding to the cost is that VR games of any quality [or by larger studios with resources for quality development] are new games, and as such usually run around 60 to 100 dollars each. And they don't just come on a disk you pop in and play.
Sidenote: Playstation VR, which is substantially easier to set up -- the headset is more expensive than the console at this stage. If you get the starter bundle it's almost 3x the cost of the console.
To many people, it's outrageous. And the argument would likely follow, "there just aren't that many good games for VR" or "I just bought a new 4k tv, why would I buy that _now_". (At least this is what I've heard so far)
For some people even Playstation VR is too cumbersome to set up, there are several cables, the camera has to face the right direction and you add the Moves (in each hand) there's even more equipment but at least the Moves are wireless. VR is not at the level where it is pick up and play phone/regular games level easy. It requires more commitment and most people, including myself are lazy, and so any inconvenience is enough to make you think twice, more technology breakthroughs are needed to make it all pick and up play / easier to use but I'd say the Playstation VR is definitely immersive.
I haven't seen a single 100$ game. Maybe this is a Playstation specific thing? VR games tend to go for less than 60$ right now. Initially people tried to pass them off at 60$, but no one was having it. If you wait for the several times yearly sales you pay less even less than 40-50$
Playstation VR seems like a terrible deal at this point with the Rift price drops and deals. Most of the cost of a VR capable PC with a Rift with vastly inferior experience.
Playstation VR seems like a terrible deal at this point with the Rift price drops and deals. Most of the cost of a VR capable PC with a Rift with vastly inferior experience.
Oh, right. I'm Canadian. I regularly see new games range from 60 to 100 CAD.
I don't have a Playstation myself, I play on a PC when I do. The rest of what you said sounds about right.
I don't have a Playstation myself, I play on a PC when I do. The rest of what you said sounds about right.
VR needs a killer application. It needs a Lotus 1-2-3 or VisaCalc. Most likely will will come in the form of something productive.
> I still remember when the original Nintendo came out in 1988. It was $149 for the system, the light gun + Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt.
The system came out in the US in 1985; the Action Set bundle you described came out in 1988. The Japanese release of the system was in 1983. It was a huge leap in technology, as you would expect with 6 years between the release of the 2600 and the Famicom; the NES graphics chip is much more capable, and the system has much more ram and address space, but the cpu is only clocked 50% higher (and is essentially the same, but with a larger address bus, and interrupts in the NES), the sound chip is better too. None of this detracts from your main point -- packing in the right software sells the hardware.
The system came out in the US in 1985; the Action Set bundle you described came out in 1988. The Japanese release of the system was in 1983. It was a huge leap in technology, as you would expect with 6 years between the release of the 2600 and the Famicom; the NES graphics chip is much more capable, and the system has much more ram and address space, but the cpu is only clocked 50% higher (and is essentially the same, but with a larger address bus, and interrupts in the NES), the sound chip is better too. None of this detracts from your main point -- packing in the right software sells the hardware.
It's always fun to watch media before a thing explodes in popularity and becomes part of everyday life; during that period when the thing still sucks, but a lot of smart people are working on it because they see some incredible potential. I'm not sure that VR will be one of those things, but I'm pretty confident of it. I recently got a VR headset, one of the cheapo kind that you stick your phone in, just to try it out. It's pretty much amazing.
I mean, it's stupid, all the games and apps are stupid, all the videos are stupid, interaction is clumsy, almost everything I try to use shifts steadily to the left until I can't see anything anymore without turning my head, and eventually turning my whole body around to keep up with the shift, and all around it just barely works at all. But, it's still amazing.
That tells me something really big is going to happen; the Internet started out the same way. It was stupid. You could watch a video, if it was 1/10th the screen size, buffered for several minutes, and you didn't need it to look very good. Regular old television was a million times better. I feel like we're at that same point right now with VR. It all sucks right now (probably because I have a cheapo VR headset that uses my phone and my phone isn't well-supported by the VR players, but it was cheap), but we're only a year or so into the "anyone can afford it" phase.
Think how many years it took for the tech to use the full potential of the Internet took to make it into the majority of homes. I think we're still way too early to tell how VR is gonna play out, but when I use it, I feel a bit of that old "OMG, this is gonna be huge in ways I can't predict" feeling the Internet gave me the first time I logged on.
I mean, it's stupid, all the games and apps are stupid, all the videos are stupid, interaction is clumsy, almost everything I try to use shifts steadily to the left until I can't see anything anymore without turning my head, and eventually turning my whole body around to keep up with the shift, and all around it just barely works at all. But, it's still amazing.
That tells me something really big is going to happen; the Internet started out the same way. It was stupid. You could watch a video, if it was 1/10th the screen size, buffered for several minutes, and you didn't need it to look very good. Regular old television was a million times better. I feel like we're at that same point right now with VR. It all sucks right now (probably because I have a cheapo VR headset that uses my phone and my phone isn't well-supported by the VR players, but it was cheap), but we're only a year or so into the "anyone can afford it" phase.
Think how many years it took for the tech to use the full potential of the Internet took to make it into the majority of homes. I think we're still way too early to tell how VR is gonna play out, but when I use it, I feel a bit of that old "OMG, this is gonna be huge in ways I can't predict" feeling the Internet gave me the first time I logged on.
I mean, it's stupid, all the games and apps are stupid, all the videos are stupid, interaction is clumsy, almost everything I try to use shifts steadily to the left until I can't see anything anymore without turning my head, and eventually turning my whole body around to keep up with the shift, and all around it just barely works at all. But, it's still amazing.
This sums it up perfectly.
This sums it up perfectly.
VR was just overhyped early. It will catch on.
Keep in mind that these are all 1st generation products. When an immersive VR system comes with a wireless headset, costs less than $500 and doesn't require 30 square feet of space, then it will begin to take off.
Remember the first iPod? We are going to be in this early adopter phase until the technology matures.
VR is not 3D TV. People who use immersive VR actually like it. 3D TV was annoying to most people after the novelty wore off.
Keep in mind that these are all 1st generation products. When an immersive VR system comes with a wireless headset, costs less than $500 and doesn't require 30 square feet of space, then it will begin to take off.
Remember the first iPod? We are going to be in this early adopter phase until the technology matures.
VR is not 3D TV. People who use immersive VR actually like it. 3D TV was annoying to most people after the novelty wore off.
These aren't 1st generation products. There has already been a VR craze, back in the 1990s.
The VR devices that are out today are incomparable with the devices of the "VR craze" of the 1990s.
And the VR devices of 2050 would be incomparable with the devices of the 2nd "VR craze" of the late 201x's.
The question is whether they are enough, not whether they are merely better.
The question is whether they are enough, not whether they are merely better.
Well, I didn't say they were comparable. I just sort of pointed out they existed.
Current generation video game consoles are also incomparable to Pong. But hey, that's the difference between 1st and 8th generation consoles.
Current generation video game consoles are also incomparable to Pong. But hey, that's the difference between 1st and 8th generation consoles.
They are much better but they are still basically the same designs as the late 90's.
A lot of things have improved but most of the problems are things that were recognized before and still aren't perfect.
They still need to get smaller, lighter, higher resolution, faster refresh rate, 4-8X GPU power, and wireless, but in another decade they should be awesome.
A lot of things have improved but most of the problems are things that were recognized before and still aren't perfect.
They still need to get smaller, lighter, higher resolution, faster refresh rate, 4-8X GPU power, and wireless, but in another decade they should be awesome.
Ahem, I would like to refer you to The Lawnmower Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/)
I kid. It's a movie from the 90's about VR turning groundskeepers into geniuses. I'm over simplifying. Watch it. I dare you. I might watch it again.
I kid. It's a movie from the 90's about VR turning groundskeepers into geniuses. I'm over simplifying. Watch it. I dare you. I might watch it again.
1985. VPL Research, the first gloves and goggles maker. I knew some of those people.
Sounds like you might have some stories to tell.
Back then, people thought gloves were going to be really important. Much effort went into making gloves that would faithfully record finger motions. Manipulation in 3D space without firm tactile feedback turned out to be like trying to do precision work wearing an oven mitten. It's not impossible, but it's really slow, and tiring. If you've done tweezer work under a microscope, you know the feeling.
Autodesk had a VR ping-pong demo, with the paddle position reporting to the computers. It took a small rack of 1980s PCs and, I think, Matrox graphics cards. Matrox had one of the few graphics cards of the 1980s with hardware geometry support, the 4x4 multiplier unit. Nobody bought it because it was so expensive. There wasn't enough compute power in the 1980s for general collision detection, let alone game physics, so you couldn't align things by pushing them against each other. Various kinds of "snap" were tried, but now there was a mode problem. In VR, you don't have a keyboard, and doing keyboard-like things is hard. Mode controls are a problem.
The '90s brought all sorts of 3D input devices, from robot arm like devices for input to magnetically levitated trackballs. All that stuff has disappeared. There have been real improvements in 3D GUIs driven by a mouse with a thumbwheel. (Try Autodesk Inventor or Autodesk Fusion, both of which have free trials.)
Newer VR systems don't use gloves; they just give you a sort of game controller for each hand. OK for gaming, but not for fine manipulation. Good for shooting, not for putting a nut on a bolt.
Autodesk had a VR ping-pong demo, with the paddle position reporting to the computers. It took a small rack of 1980s PCs and, I think, Matrox graphics cards. Matrox had one of the few graphics cards of the 1980s with hardware geometry support, the 4x4 multiplier unit. Nobody bought it because it was so expensive. There wasn't enough compute power in the 1980s for general collision detection, let alone game physics, so you couldn't align things by pushing them against each other. Various kinds of "snap" were tried, but now there was a mode problem. In VR, you don't have a keyboard, and doing keyboard-like things is hard. Mode controls are a problem.
The '90s brought all sorts of 3D input devices, from robot arm like devices for input to magnetically levitated trackballs. All that stuff has disappeared. There have been real improvements in 3D GUIs driven by a mouse with a thumbwheel. (Try Autodesk Inventor or Autodesk Fusion, both of which have free trials.)
Newer VR systems don't use gloves; they just give you a sort of game controller for each hand. OK for gaming, but not for fine manipulation. Good for shooting, not for putting a nut on a bolt.
These are 1st generation products in the same sense that the original iPod was. Sure it's not inaccurate to say that walkmans existed in the 70s, but it's not an equivalent product category.
This is at least the third VR crazy, mid 90's with VRML, 2007 with virtual worlds, and now 360 movies and VR games with better stereo vision headsets. This one will stick I think, but headsets need to improve and content needs to improve.
I tried a VR demo a few months ago. It was fantastic!
This stuff has come a long way. It tracks every slightest movement of your head and controllers. The graphics and sound will immerse you in a world you will believe is real.
Very nice gaming is possible, as well as recreation. People could visit fantastic virtual worlds just to be somewhere else and feel good; a kind of therapy, if you will.
I don't understand what these insipid nay-saying wankers are blabbing about.
This stuff has come a long way. It tracks every slightest movement of your head and controllers. The graphics and sound will immerse you in a world you will believe is real.
Very nice gaming is possible, as well as recreation. People could visit fantastic virtual worlds just to be somewhere else and feel good; a kind of therapy, if you will.
I don't understand what these insipid nay-saying wankers are blabbing about.
I don't know. I tried the PSVR, found it very cool (significantly better and more immersible than I thought), yet I wouldn't buy one. A good demo doesn't make for a good product.
The HTC Vive feels much better than the PSVR. The room-scale tracking and "grappling" hand controls really add to the experience.
IMHO walking around is the real thing in VR; games not directly designed with this in mind are not exploiting the unique possibilities of the medium.
IMHO walking around is the real thing in VR; games not directly designed with this in mind are not exploiting the unique possibilities of the medium.
Mr Williams, a 32-year-old former marine, was playing “Sprint Vector”, a VR running game: players swing hand-held controllers to simulate motion. Though he has been standing in one place, his brain believes he has just run for several miles.
I wonder if anyone has tried using this tech to somehow trick the body into activating what happens when one actually goes running? Can I get a workout by just watching myself run in this VR world???
I wonder if anyone has tried using this tech to somehow trick the body into activating what happens when one actually goes running? Can I get a workout by just watching myself run in this VR world???
I highly doubt it. At least not more of a workout than you get from just bouncing in one place, which is more than a lot of people get.
"You said it wasn't real"
"The mind makes it real"
"The mind makes it real"
There are some weird results in exercise science related to this. For example, if you perform exercises only on one side, unilateral strength on the other side improves (something that seems like a pointless novelty until you consider training while injured). There's a huge amount of strength that relates to 'neural' factors.
Conversely, apparently elevated heart rate due to gaming does not improve aerobic fitness.
So I'm thinking that, broadly, there will be no such thing as a free lunch here (as per usual).
Conversely, apparently elevated heart rate due to gaming does not improve aerobic fitness.
So I'm thinking that, broadly, there will be no such thing as a free lunch here (as per usual).
I'm on the "will flop like 3D TV" bandwagon, but for another reason than just the lack of killer app and high price. I think a lot of faithful are just trying to wish away a significant barrier to entry: motion sickness.
I know lowering the lag reduces this issue, but it does not completely solve it.
I have a friend who has an interest in VR so he tried the various models being demoed in shopping malls when he could find them in the US and the EU. Always the same problem: motion sickness. So he would ask the people managing the demo kits and would usually get the same answer, a bit more than 50% of the people who try have that same problem. Then a few months ago I came across an article that was essentially raising the same point (can't source it, sorry. The number they gave was closer to 40%).
So basically it seems about half of the target audience asked to shell out a small fortune will have "puking on the carpet" as their most memorable VR moment... Not really a recipe for success.
I know lowering the lag reduces this issue, but it does not completely solve it.
I have a friend who has an interest in VR so he tried the various models being demoed in shopping malls when he could find them in the US and the EU. Always the same problem: motion sickness. So he would ask the people managing the demo kits and would usually get the same answer, a bit more than 50% of the people who try have that same problem. Then a few months ago I came across an article that was essentially raising the same point (can't source it, sorry. The number they gave was closer to 40%).
So basically it seems about half of the target audience asked to shell out a small fortune will have "puking on the carpet" as their most memorable VR moment... Not really a recipe for success.
I'm guessing your friend tried the PSVR or Oculus Rift with heavy use of a controller while seated.
Having tracked hands, moving around (instead of turning with a controller) and using teleport (or just room scale 1:1 movement) reduces the percent of dizzy people to zero. If you use slow artificial locomotion with comfort features (e.g. FoV reduction), that number is about 5%.
Having tracked hands, moving around (instead of turning with a controller) and using teleport (or just room scale 1:1 movement) reduces the percent of dizzy people to zero. If you use slow artificial locomotion with comfort features (e.g. FoV reduction), that number is about 5%.
I am aware that these prevent nausea or dizziness from happening, but what does it say about the viability of the medium if all of its content must have that kind of constraints? VR allows experiencing so-called 'presence', except in practice said presence must not match anything else than that of your actual body at that moment. We end up quite far removed from the "freely explore virtual worlds" that VR is marketing.
I'm not sure how are you interpreting the "constraints". Yes, it's difficult to adapt existing games to VR, but it's possible. Having proper artificial locomotion for 95% of the public and comfortable teleport based motion for the remaining 5% sounds like a good compromise.
That's not a separate point from "lack of a killer app" -- most motion sickness is a result of bad content, that violates rules of good perceptual design.
VR might take a while to become a viable mainstream entertainment medium but there are sizeable niches that can sustain businesses as development catches up with the hype. Location-based entertainment, hardcore home VR games and enterprise products all seem to be reasonably solid markets, even if they don't scale up to the dizzying heights some expect them to reach.
We have a design meeting and visualisation tool for engineers and desginers to discuss projects with their management, clients and other domain experts. This has significant benefit for our customers and it will not go away anytime soon.
Perhaps the hype cycle will cause the current HMD manufacturers to exit the market and VR will retreat to these niches but it's definitely not going away.
We have a design meeting and visualisation tool for engineers and desginers to discuss projects with their management, clients and other domain experts. This has significant benefit for our customers and it will not go away anytime soon.
Perhaps the hype cycle will cause the current HMD manufacturers to exit the market and VR will retreat to these niches but it's definitely not going away.
VR needs good software and the reality is that it is just not there yet. If it does not come by the end of this year there will be a problem.
I think it will happen though for the one reason that Bethesda is delivering Doom, Fallout 4 and Skyrim for Sony PS4 VR for this Christmas. That will give Sony a big reason to keep yelling about PS4 VR and will restore the faith of people like me who bought a VR headset early that is now just sitting there waiting for good software to use it with.
The next challenge facing vR beyond that point is whether the three titles mentioned above deliver on the promise of VR - if they do not then VR is finished, at least for this round of enthusiasm about the idea.
I think it will happen though for the one reason that Bethesda is delivering Doom, Fallout 4 and Skyrim for Sony PS4 VR for this Christmas. That will give Sony a big reason to keep yelling about PS4 VR and will restore the faith of people like me who bought a VR headset early that is now just sitting there waiting for good software to use it with.
The next challenge facing vR beyond that point is whether the three titles mentioned above deliver on the promise of VR - if they do not then VR is finished, at least for this round of enthusiasm about the idea.
Doom, Fallout and Skyrim seem like precisely the wrong games to target for VR, unless they remake them completely to use instant teleportation instead of walking.
FPS in VR only works from a static standing point, otherwise the VR sickness kicks in really fast.
FPS in VR only works from a static standing point, otherwise the VR sickness kicks in really fast.
Killer app + low price + user friendliness = mass-market success.
VR still doesn't have the three variables. But it's getting really close!
VR still doesn't have the three variables. But it's getting really close!
I don't see this mentioned too often in the critique of vr, but I wonder if the isolation of putting on a headset is another barrier for adoption. While the isolation could be an advantage on something like an airplane or even an open office, I just don't feel like disconnecting that much from reality when in the comfort of my own home.
15 years ago, the foreseen path was adoption of 3D TV then replacement of TV by headsets. 3D TV does not exist anymore and people are watching movies on their phone.
IMHO, the future is the replacement of the screen of smartphones by glasses with AR. The phone will be in my pocket with my hand and the glasses will be near my eye, ear and mouth.
IMHO, the future is the replacement of the screen of smartphones by glasses with AR. The phone will be in my pocket with my hand and the glasses will be near my eye, ear and mouth.
What I imagined VR will give, once the headsets and input devices have been iterated on, is a way to have a true workspace environment on the move.
I wonder how far would screen/projection technology had to go. I'd love to have an AR headset that would allow me to summon a huge screen in front of me, however I want that screen to have the same DPI as my computer.
I read, when they were pushing 3D TV, that some 10-15% of the population don't have 3D perception for one reason or another, and therefore don't get the immersive experience. Personally, being in that category, I don't get much from these headsets beyond feeling that there is an image in front of my eye that moves with my head, which is more annoying than anything. The AR thing sounds potentially useful though.
Does anyone have links to Mckinsey/KPMG* type studies (in pdf format) which forecast VR adoption and segment usage by type?
*Or anyone "authoritative".
*Or anyone "authoritative".
To look at today's initial products and call the industry dead, or disappointing, is like looking at an MVP app release and deciding that an entire market does not exist because the initial solution is not perfect.
This type of contrarianism is seductive, and often results in many clicks for the media and the reinforcement of curmudgeonly opinions by those with unrealistic expectations for short-term change (and often who underestimate long-term impacts).
But it's important to evaluate today's VR with the same eyes as when looking at an MVP: does it meet its goals? Does it provide value? Does it show potential if developed further? Is there a product-market fit?
The answer to all of the above is a resounding "yes." Try it if you haven't. VR and AR have the potential to be truly revolutionary technologies. Yes, there is some distance to the goal, but it's eminently achievable - if the tech is not killed off by mis-set expectations, tribalism, paranoia, pessimism, and negativity.