The VR Winter Continues(ben-evans.com)
ben-evans.com
The VR Winter Continues
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2024/7/8/the-vr-winter-continues
59 comments
Well, the wireless part is already pretty much here. With a good Wifi 6E or 7 router, Virtual Desktop (https://www.vrdesktop.net) is good enough that you're limited by your GPU power more than anything else.
There's several problems with that. 1. The latency - even if fine for slower games its enough to cause slight vestibular-ocular mismatch and discomfort. 2. Compression and visual quality - not only is the quality worse but its also cost using more GPU resources for the lower quality compared to a DisplayPort signal. 3. the Wifi 6E RF bands and protocols are not suited for lossless, low latency video transmission. Especially as we approach 4K per eye resolutions, the bandwidth is not there and relying on additional encode/decode hardware adds more latency and artifacts. We also need a solution that would allow for multiple users in a single building to use wireless VR, which I don't believe will be possible with the RF bands available.
There was new Wigig standard that may have solved this, but I believe its not being used anywhere.
There was new Wigig standard that may have solved this, but I believe its not being used anywhere.
Crooked-v is not hypothesizing: People already use this setup, myself included! (Actually I am even only using 5ghz not 6ghz)
On-device reprojection/ATW lowers the bar for bandwidth and latency considerably, and many of us spend hours and hours with VR streaming wirelessly.
Separate in-room WAPs would be the only real recommended modification for multiple vr users in the same building.
On-device reprojection/ATW lowers the bar for bandwidth and latency considerably, and many of us spend hours and hours with VR streaming wirelessly.
Separate in-room WAPs would be the only real recommended modification for multiple vr users in the same building.
I am aware people use it, but its only a partial solution that introduces new issues. For certain users it may be sufficient but even if you ignore the latency and compression issues, being unable to have multiple headsets adjacent makes it an incomplete solution if the goal is spreading the technology to new users. Even multiple WAPs won't get around the bandwidth congestion.
Reminds me of the 3d TVs that were being forced on consumers. Nobody wanted them because you had to wear a set of goofy glasses.
The problem with VR and AR is that you can't sit around the living room and enjoy the same entertainment. You isolate yourself away from others in the room in a strange way.
Wearing headphones is somewhat like this in that others can't easily talk to you, but at least they can waive their hands to get your attention if needed.
The problem with VR and AR is that you can't sit around the living room and enjoy the same entertainment. You isolate yourself away from others in the room in a strange way.
Wearing headphones is somewhat like this in that others can't easily talk to you, but at least they can waive their hands to get your attention if needed.
> The problem with VR and AR is that you can't sit around the living room and enjoy the same entertainment. You isolate yourself away from others in the room in a strange way.
Speaking on this, I wish more games integrated the role of the God-mode / PC player like some do through things like dev consoles.
It creates instant entertainment for the outside players to be able to see and affect the game world. Some games are explicitly designed for PC vs VR while others, like Blade & Sorcery, give you the ability to drop in enemies for the VR player.
Anything that can keep a party lively and entertained while waiting their turn. I think I have more fun watching my friends scream & flail as I drop in more enemies than I do actually playing.
Speaking on this, I wish more games integrated the role of the God-mode / PC player like some do through things like dev consoles.
It creates instant entertainment for the outside players to be able to see and affect the game world. Some games are explicitly designed for PC vs VR while others, like Blade & Sorcery, give you the ability to drop in enemies for the VR player.
Anything that can keep a party lively and entertained while waiting their turn. I think I have more fun watching my friends scream & flail as I drop in more enemies than I do actually playing.
The problem is that video games and social media are already optimized for dopamine. There is little boost to the dopamine hit offered by the immersion of VR. People aren't going to become addicted enough to VR in itself to overpower the inconvenience and simulation sickness of putting a computer on your head.
The inconvenience is very much in play for me. I bought into VR in the ~2015 era.
I loved it from the beginning. I spent almost 3 years at a VR startup.
Even when I play VR now with my Valve Index, I tend to play sitting VR like VTOL VR for ease because I don't enjoy walking around essentially blind anymore. At first, it was funny and novel to punch a hole in the wall, break a controller, hurt your hand but after a while, it just becomes annoying.
In my opinion, locomotion and the lack of innovation in it is what is holding VR back. Every game comes up with a new version of locomotion and somehow they always invent new ways to make people sick. The much-lauded Boneworks is nearly unplayable because all it takes is getting stuck in the wall or whipping too fast and you'll wish the trash cans were real.
VR games need to give up on joystick movement and start thinking about how to increase player comfort either by going back to roomscale so your virtual and physical movements are joined or the tried-and-true casting movement. Or alternatively, go even more niche and make the game VR Treadmill only so they can entirely optimize the game around heavy movement to push manufacturers and players to invest in the tech.
---
The other thing I am keeping an eye on is VR Computing. I am dying for Simula One to land it. I would love to spend my money on one but with them being, I think, a year past their self-imposed deadline with early production headsets not having the retro-futuristic look they sold but now looking like a boring Quest clone... not feeling great and thanking myself for not putting down the cash.
I loved it from the beginning. I spent almost 3 years at a VR startup.
Even when I play VR now with my Valve Index, I tend to play sitting VR like VTOL VR for ease because I don't enjoy walking around essentially blind anymore. At first, it was funny and novel to punch a hole in the wall, break a controller, hurt your hand but after a while, it just becomes annoying.
In my opinion, locomotion and the lack of innovation in it is what is holding VR back. Every game comes up with a new version of locomotion and somehow they always invent new ways to make people sick. The much-lauded Boneworks is nearly unplayable because all it takes is getting stuck in the wall or whipping too fast and you'll wish the trash cans were real.
VR games need to give up on joystick movement and start thinking about how to increase player comfort either by going back to roomscale so your virtual and physical movements are joined or the tried-and-true casting movement. Or alternatively, go even more niche and make the game VR Treadmill only so they can entirely optimize the game around heavy movement to push manufacturers and players to invest in the tech.
---
The other thing I am keeping an eye on is VR Computing. I am dying for Simula One to land it. I would love to spend my money on one but with them being, I think, a year past their self-imposed deadline with early production headsets not having the retro-futuristic look they sold but now looking like a boring Quest clone... not feeling great and thanking myself for not putting down the cash.
> VR games need to give up on joystick movement and start thinking about how to increase player comfort
And stop listening to existing users who like joystick movement. I mean that entirely seriously: there's a vehement subset who will complain if reviews even mention nausea as a factor because 'it works for me, stop talking about purely personal factors'.
And stop listening to existing users who like joystick movement. I mean that entirely seriously: there's a vehement subset who will complain if reviews even mention nausea as a factor because 'it works for me, stop talking about purely personal factors'.
You can definitely short circuit it a bit with fans and grounding techniques like standing pads but all the setup increases the annoyance factor of setup.
I do wonder though if shorter people feel it less so. It's always felt like I am skyscraper waving in the wind because it almost feels like my feet are in concrete blocks on a conveyor belt so my head feels disconnected as movement happens.
I do wonder though if shorter people feel it less so. It's always felt like I am skyscraper waving in the wind because it almost feels like my feet are in concrete blocks on a conveyor belt so my head feels disconnected as movement happens.
The fact that consumer VR remains a niche category even in its best use case - gaming - tells you everything you need to know about whether or not it's ready for development in the non-gaming consumer space.
Until VR tech is strong enough that it becomes a must-own product type for the average gamer, any other consumer-focused use case should be considered dead in the water.
Until VR tech is strong enough that it becomes a must-own product type for the average gamer, any other consumer-focused use case should be considered dead in the water.
I think the gaming VR space is extra-weird because so many devs aren't really designing for VR. They're just making the same games they already have, but with VR instead of a screen.
For an example of what I mean, look at the many, many FPS-style VR games that have the barest of bare-bone adaptations to the medium (stick movement, often button-based menus, etc), and then compare to Gorilla Tag. Even the big-name games like Half-Life Alyx have similar failures of imagination; the Half-Life series made its fame in part due to physics-based nonsense and yet in the VR game you can't even use objects to hit things.
Even weirder is that the games that would benefit from "VR as a screen" without many of the downsides—think, for example, playing Civilization on a big floating globe you can move around, completely sidestepping any nausea issues—just don't exist for the most part.
For an example of what I mean, look at the many, many FPS-style VR games that have the barest of bare-bone adaptations to the medium (stick movement, often button-based menus, etc), and then compare to Gorilla Tag. Even the big-name games like Half-Life Alyx have similar failures of imagination; the Half-Life series made its fame in part due to physics-based nonsense and yet in the VR game you can't even use objects to hit things.
Even weirder is that the games that would benefit from "VR as a screen" without many of the downsides—think, for example, playing Civilization on a big floating globe you can move around, completely sidestepping any nausea issues—just don't exist for the most part.
> games that would benefit from "VR as a screen" without many of the downsides—think, for example, playing Civilization
As a kind of ex-VR enthusiast and strategy fan, I don't see much value there.
A single strategy game like Civ are 10s of hours of playtime or if a paradox game, 100s. The magical experience of VR presence fades pretty sharpish so it quickly comes down to comfort and practicality. This also applies to MMORPGs like Elite Dangerous - it's a breath taking experience docking your ship the first few times but as soon as you are into the grind, a headset just becomes sweaty nuisance.
These are games that benefit from the external world e.g.
- eat a sandwich, sip coffee, tickle the cat on your lap... as you ponder your next move
- have 30 browser tabs open - the wiki, a strategy guide, a tutorial, the patch notes, a thread about a bug, and that random history rabbit-hole because you are accidentally learning things about the Carolingians or whatever.
- ideal games to play along with some TV/netflix/youtube that only deserves partial attention. These are not games that benefit from 100% undivided focus. Kind of the opposite, a thoughtful game benefits from "gazing out the window" type defocussing.
- if playing something new/tricky, then I also have a todo list and spreadsheet for calculating some things going too
I think motion controllers have untapped potential but even then, they are are going against mouse/keyboard. When the task is wrangling complexity with both precise selections, data navigation/entry and bulk actions, filtering, searches etc. then it's difficult to see an advantage. You can enjoy some Minority Report navigation for a bit but after a few hundred hours... a keyboard shortcut is the real, truly valuable innovation you want.
Instantly jumping from location to location / screen to screen is better than whatever visual journey VR would typically insist on. I generally have zero issues with VR sickness but I actually get kind of nauseous micromanaging multiple wars on different sides of a map in 2D because of having to rapidly flip back and forth every other second. I can't imagine how bad that would be in VR!
As a kind of ex-VR enthusiast and strategy fan, I don't see much value there.
A single strategy game like Civ are 10s of hours of playtime or if a paradox game, 100s. The magical experience of VR presence fades pretty sharpish so it quickly comes down to comfort and practicality. This also applies to MMORPGs like Elite Dangerous - it's a breath taking experience docking your ship the first few times but as soon as you are into the grind, a headset just becomes sweaty nuisance.
These are games that benefit from the external world e.g.
- eat a sandwich, sip coffee, tickle the cat on your lap... as you ponder your next move
- have 30 browser tabs open - the wiki, a strategy guide, a tutorial, the patch notes, a thread about a bug, and that random history rabbit-hole because you are accidentally learning things about the Carolingians or whatever.
- ideal games to play along with some TV/netflix/youtube that only deserves partial attention. These are not games that benefit from 100% undivided focus. Kind of the opposite, a thoughtful game benefits from "gazing out the window" type defocussing.
- if playing something new/tricky, then I also have a todo list and spreadsheet for calculating some things going too
I think motion controllers have untapped potential but even then, they are are going against mouse/keyboard. When the task is wrangling complexity with both precise selections, data navigation/entry and bulk actions, filtering, searches etc. then it's difficult to see an advantage. You can enjoy some Minority Report navigation for a bit but after a few hundred hours... a keyboard shortcut is the real, truly valuable innovation you want.
Instantly jumping from location to location / screen to screen is better than whatever visual journey VR would typically insist on. I generally have zero issues with VR sickness but I actually get kind of nauseous micromanaging multiple wars on different sides of a map in 2D because of having to rapidly flip back and forth every other second. I can't imagine how bad that would be in VR!
> playing Civilization on a big floating globe you can move around, completely sidestepping any nausea issues—just don't exist for the most part.
You've now made me realize what I am missing.
All I can think about is having a palette that I pick buildings from then bow down to arrange them on the map. In multiplayer, you would see the other player's God avatars walking around commanding their little troops.
You've now made me realize what I am missing.
All I can think about is having a palette that I pick buildings from then bow down to arrange them on the map. In multiplayer, you would see the other player's God avatars walking around commanding their little troops.
For a VR game that does something like that, check out Gods of Gravity (https://godsofgravityvr.com). It's a mini-RTS where you can see each other player in the environment, so part of the gameplay is trying to actively watch out for what they're doing at the same time you're doing your thing.
For something with a similar element but cooperative, there's Demeo (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1484280/Demeo/), which tries to blend the best parts of a board games in person (easy communication and body language, hangout lobbies, etc) with the benefits of VR (like being able to arbitrarily manipulate and zoom the game environment).
For something with a similar element but cooperative, there's Demeo (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1484280/Demeo/), which tries to blend the best parts of a board games in person (easy communication and body language, hangout lobbies, etc) with the benefits of VR (like being able to arbitrarily manipulate and zoom the game environment).
It's not winning the console war but its certainly in it. Quest install base is at parity with Xbox. That's incredibly impressive considering Meta is coming from outside the industry entirely.
That's incredible. I had no idea the XBOX install base was so low.
Install base I can imagine, a better comparison would be average usage time in a month.
Everyone I know who bought an Oculus has it laying on some shelf accumulating dust after 2-3 months.
Everyone I know who bought an Oculus has it laying on some shelf accumulating dust after 2-3 months.
I have an Oculus headset, but just getting going is an ordeal, I have to turn on the goggles, load into MetaOS (or whatever the name is), then load up into PCVR-mode, an then load my game (through Steam).
It's like inception, and I am 3 layers deep, and every layer has it own controls.
It's like inception, and I am 3 layers deep, and every layer has it own controls.
It’s like how every damn game I load on Steam actually loads a launcher for that company.
They can’t just load you right into the application. They need to own the real estate so they can control the experience and later show you ads.
They can’t just load you right into the application. They need to own the real estate so they can control the experience and later show you ads.
Is there any technological solution to VR motion sickness? I built up my motion sickness immunity on oculus, could play games well, and then one day got hit with crazy nausea and since then I can’t play, that feeling was so bad, it’s similar to when you eat something and it makes you nausea and you can’t eat it ever again. Is there a technical solution to make sure people don’t need to build nausea immunity? Seems like the biggest UX hurdle to be and without a fix, how can this really take off?
There's a device called the Otolith [0] that supposedly can cure vertigo and supposedly prevented motion sickness in VR, but they're only chasing the market for solving vertigo.
Curiously, what games are you playing? I find that games that involve real world motion didn't match virtual world motion (ie, any racing or flying game), I feel sick within seconds, but games where the two worlds always match (ie, Beat Saber, Pokerstars VR, Superhot VR, Space Pirate Trainer), I could play for literally HOURS and feel fine.
[0] https://otolithlabs.com/nvrt-technology/
Curiously, what games are you playing? I find that games that involve real world motion didn't match virtual world motion (ie, any racing or flying game), I feel sick within seconds, but games where the two worlds always match (ie, Beat Saber, Pokerstars VR, Superhot VR, Space Pirate Trainer), I could play for literally HOURS and feel fine.
[0] https://otolithlabs.com/nvrt-technology/
Games where I'm sitting down like a car, I wouldnt get motion sickness, but the ones where you walk around with the keypad like Medal Of Honor and Half Life Alyx are the ones that I cant do anymore. I was having a blast with medal of honor, playing 30-45 minute bursts until the nausea once set in very bad and stayed since then.
I dont get any motion sickness from room scale games (real world motion match virtual world) like ping pong or watching movies.
I dont get any motion sickness from room scale games (real world motion match virtual world) like ping pong or watching movies.
As far as I can remember I've always been sick in cars, when I'm not driving. When I first tried my Q3 headset, I couldn't stand it for more than 10mn in a row. The trick I discovered works for me, but I wouldn't bet on it for everyone else. I removed my shoes and I play barefoot, with my two feet firmly on the ground. I couldn't play Population One until I applied this trick.
Now after many months of using it, I must say I feel pretty confortable. My main usage now is watching movies or videos on cinema size screen.
Sure, it's easy: use movement based on actual body motions, like Gorilla Tag does. The nausea rate for arm-swing movement is negligibly low.
But, this takes actually designing for VR, rather than designing the same way as a PC game and then slapping on "but in VR" to it.
But, this takes actually designing for VR, rather than designing the same way as a PC game and then slapping on "but in VR" to it.
> Is there any technological solution to VR motion sickness?
A fan facing you so you can orient yourself in the room along with starting on a standing pad. Both help you ground back into the world but like you stated, it's largely getting used to it by building up longer sessions.
I am not a neuroscientist or the like but I imagine there are visual tricks that you could employ to improve it. I think things like blacking out vision when turning quickly is one method. I can't speak for sure, but it almost feels like VR games haven't adapted to screens being 2" from your eyeballs.
I'd imagine anything that can help / trick our brains into processing like we are in the world would help. It looks like foveated depth-of-field helps reduce sickness by 66%, I'd imagine because it mimics how our vision works so our eyes are trying to process less at one time.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/12/4006
A fan facing you so you can orient yourself in the room along with starting on a standing pad. Both help you ground back into the world but like you stated, it's largely getting used to it by building up longer sessions.
I am not a neuroscientist or the like but I imagine there are visual tricks that you could employ to improve it. I think things like blacking out vision when turning quickly is one method. I can't speak for sure, but it almost feels like VR games haven't adapted to screens being 2" from your eyeballs.
I'd imagine anything that can help / trick our brains into processing like we are in the world would help. It looks like foveated depth-of-field helps reduce sickness by 66%, I'd imagine because it mimics how our vision works so our eyes are trying to process less at one time.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/12/4006
> I can't speak for sure, but it almost feels like VR games haven't adapted to screens being 2" from your eyeballs.
The screen being 2" from your eyes has nothing to do with it, especially since the lenses focus the image as if it was 4 feet from your face.
At least, not for me, so I guess this is just worthless anecdata, but...
I have literally played Beat Saber for an hour straight, then sitting down for PokerStars VR for another 4 hours. Five total hours in VR, and I felt 100% fine.
But put me in Assetto Corsa (racing game) in VR, and as soon as the car starts moving, I'm feeling dizzy. Half a lap around the Nurburgring, and I'm nauseous. After finishing my lap, I'm having to take the headset off and I'm spending the next 15 minutes fighting the urge to puke and then another hour with a headache.
The greatest cause of motion sickness in VR is simply motion in the real world not matching the virtual world motion.
The screen being 2" from your eyes has nothing to do with it, especially since the lenses focus the image as if it was 4 feet from your face.
At least, not for me, so I guess this is just worthless anecdata, but...
I have literally played Beat Saber for an hour straight, then sitting down for PokerStars VR for another 4 hours. Five total hours in VR, and I felt 100% fine.
But put me in Assetto Corsa (racing game) in VR, and as soon as the car starts moving, I'm feeling dizzy. Half a lap around the Nurburgring, and I'm nauseous. After finishing my lap, I'm having to take the headset off and I'm spending the next 15 minutes fighting the urge to puke and then another hour with a headache.
The greatest cause of motion sickness in VR is simply motion in the real world not matching the virtual world motion.
You can buy a full motion simulator. That's how they solved the problem for pilot training. Starting at $71,900 for a full motion plane simulator.
https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/fmx
https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/topic/simulato...
https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/fmx
https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/topic/simulato...
> it’s obvious that the devices will get better, lighter and cheaper, but much less obvious whether that’s enough. How many people will care?
I don't know the answer to that question, but I certainly won't care. I am not in any of the demographic groups that can currently get value from it.
VR/AR is a thing that covers several niche use cases very well, but it's hard to see how it would be useful enough generally that it would become a common consumer item.
I could see it becoming popular amongst gamers, and its utility in specific things like industrial use are pretty clear, but most people aren't gamers, and most people don't need to do industrial sorts of things in their daily lives.
I don't see it taking the role of smartphones in most people's lives even if the gear becomes no more onerous than a pair of glasses for a number of reasons, but if the tech does reach that point, I could see a large minority of people swapping to them.
But who knows? What I'm very confident about is that this won't be a mainstream thing for a nontrivial number of years.
I don't know the answer to that question, but I certainly won't care. I am not in any of the demographic groups that can currently get value from it.
VR/AR is a thing that covers several niche use cases very well, but it's hard to see how it would be useful enough generally that it would become a common consumer item.
I could see it becoming popular amongst gamers, and its utility in specific things like industrial use are pretty clear, but most people aren't gamers, and most people don't need to do industrial sorts of things in their daily lives.
I don't see it taking the role of smartphones in most people's lives even if the gear becomes no more onerous than a pair of glasses for a number of reasons, but if the tech does reach that point, I could see a large minority of people swapping to them.
But who knows? What I'm very confident about is that this won't be a mainstream thing for a nontrivial number of years.
Maybe I'm not a visionary, but I can't think of a mainstream use case. Maybe as a telepresence thing for better situational awareness? But I think for a lot of things the tech we have today is "good enough". I'm not going to jack into cyberspace to pay my water bill "in person" when I can use an app or website with less friction.
Just imagine a smart phone but the screen is holograms you can interact with.
Apps can be any size of your choosing because you're not limited by a physical screen. Google maps can be a wall sized 2D map or a fully 3D model in you hand.
Its not that hard to consider why AR apps would be compelling once the basic interface is sorted out.
Apps can be any size of your choosing because you're not limited by a physical screen. Google maps can be a wall sized 2D map or a fully 3D model in you hand.
Its not that hard to consider why AR apps would be compelling once the basic interface is sorted out.
AR I agree I see some options, but VR I don't.
I can only see it working if you have like, a telepresence device on the other end. An unpopular example might be a robot solider with its “handler” halfway around the globe.
Maybe a “better” example would be of the same ilk, a robot in space repairing something with the handler back on earth controlling the thing.
Maybe a “better” example would be of the same ilk, a robot in space repairing something with the handler back on earth controlling the thing.
The radio delay alone will cause vection, I would think, and unless near-term technology advances include something like an ansible I don't see a way around that.
AR will be as big as smartphones; imagine wait staff seeing people’s orders above their heads, convention attendees seeing virtual name tags, mechanics seeing the engine details overlaid, phone repair personnel seeing the step by step instructions, me seeing arrows pointing to where I left my keys, and so forth. But it has to be on a comfort level of “wearing glasses”, I think.
All of your examples except for the keys are the sorts of niche applications I think could work. But they aren't things that will make the average person want to incorporate them into their every-minute life.
I think something around the bulk and weight factor of good ski goggles (about 150g, as compared to the Quest 3's 722g and more if you want a headstrap that's actually comfortable) would be enough for AR devices to start seeing regular professional use (mechanics, plumbers, and so on) and to start showing up as mass-market media consumption/2D-game-console-replacement devices. At that point it would be comfortable enough for non-enthusiasts to wear for a few hours at a time without complaints.
Ok, if there were glasses I could put on that would in AR show me where everything I have is from the last time I put it down, as an ADHDer that would be a gamechanger. But, I also have zero faith in tech companies letting anything of that sort be private.
VR is failing because it requires too much activation energy. Games are fundamentally about leisure. VR as it exists requires clearing space and standing and moving. It's also high intensity. High intensity is good under certain circumstances but I think humans are actually wired to prefer lower intensity things.
When VR becomes something that is effortless to use and I can just slip on some glasses and not even feel them on my head is when it will break out.
Apple has some fundamental aspects of VR right such as controlling the UI with eyes and slight hand movements. Also most apps are geared towards sitting down. The problem is their headset is too heavy.
edit: Also I know there are people the above doesn't apply to, I'm basically going off of revealed preference. There is a reason why there are so many people that prefer watching others play games rather than playing themselves for example. There is also a reason mobile games are so popular over desktop.
When VR becomes something that is effortless to use and I can just slip on some glasses and not even feel them on my head is when it will break out.
Apple has some fundamental aspects of VR right such as controlling the UI with eyes and slight hand movements. Also most apps are geared towards sitting down. The problem is their headset is too heavy.
edit: Also I know there are people the above doesn't apply to, I'm basically going off of revealed preference. There is a reason why there are so many people that prefer watching others play games rather than playing themselves for example. There is also a reason mobile games are so popular over desktop.
I think what you described is Apple's basic strategy for this space in the future. If you squint, you can see the seeds of it with the Vision Pro: the hardware sucks (and will continue to suck for years, because most of it is constrained by current chips and optics), but the OS is already pretty extensively designed to be something that you casually use in the middle of doing other stuff, as with a phone or tablet.
Standing and moving is too much effort for consuming content. Meta needs to invent some kind of electric wheelchair with direct neural injection, paralysing the consumer from the neck down. The human race will achieve its final sentient blob form.
You may dislike what I'm saying about humanity but I'm more concerned about the truth of it. There is a lot of evidence that we have evolved to avoid expending energy.
You just need to look at bipedalism to see that. Dynamic stability-based walking is bad at a lot of things, but it's great for conserving energy while moving long distances.
I'm not the one who is downvoting you. I got rid of my Quest 3 because of VR sickness. Aside from causing severe sickness that took a couple of days to pass, it was too heavy and uncomfortable to wear.
Copy/pasting from one of my other comments:
Curiously, what games are you playing? I find that games that involve real world motion didn't match virtual world motion (ie, any racing or flying game), I feel sick within seconds, but games where the two worlds always match (ie, Beat Saber, Pokerstars VR, Superhot VR, Space Pirate Trainer), I could play for literally HOURS and feel fine.
Curiously, what games are you playing? I find that games that involve real world motion didn't match virtual world motion (ie, any racing or flying game), I feel sick within seconds, but games where the two worlds always match (ie, Beat Saber, Pokerstars VR, Superhot VR, Space Pirate Trainer), I could play for literally HOURS and feel fine.
That's right. The cause of motion sickness is when vestibular input (sense of physical movement) does not match visual input. If I am standing and moving naturally in a VR world I can stay there for hours without feeling nauseous. FPS or flight sims cause VR sickness.
VR sickness is the inverse of car sickness.
- VR FPS game: Visually moving while physically static.
- Car passenger in back seat: Physically moving while visually static (car interior).
VR sickness is the inverse of car sickness.
- VR FPS game: Visually moving while physically static.
- Car passenger in back seat: Physically moving while visually static (car interior).
I'd like to see a company create AR experiences tailored to your home. Ship you high-end headsets and tracking beacons, play the game, then send them back. Disneyland on VHS.
https://thecontextwindow.ai/p/disneyland-on-vhs
https://thecontextwindow.ai/p/disneyland-on-vhs
This is the second VR winter, of course; perhaps there will be another yet to come.
This is a key idea, and a pattern one sees over and over:
> Something can be amazingly cool and part of the future, but not a big part of the future.
I think that self-driving cars will also prove to be in this category.
This is a key idea, and a pattern one sees over and over:
> Something can be amazingly cool and part of the future, but not a big part of the future.
I think that self-driving cars will also prove to be in this category.
Third VR winter. Don't forget that Sensorama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensorama) also failed to take off.
That's basically a 3D movie. Doesn't count as VR.
> > cool and part of the future, but not a big part of the future.
Like 3D printing.
Like 3D printing.
I know pretty much everyone who makes stuff at home now has a decent printer as part of their tools and knows how to design basic stuff. The thing is people tinkering with stuff has become niche, as most people now no longer care to know how stuff works and just buy new when something breaks.
For those who do fix things or build/craft them, a 3D printer is now a pretty standard and mature part of the toolset.
It did revolutionise things especially in the home (in the industry it already had, we just didn't know it because it was hidden behind prototype NDAs and hundreds of thousands of dollar price tags). That's pretty great for a piece of tech. It democratised the ability to custom design, share such designs and manufacture them reliably to the masses. Only a niche of the masses is interested in that because most of them are mindless consumer drones, but still.
People expect too much these days. VR was never going to revolutionise everything. That's just what some circlejerking investors were telling themselves. But it will revolutionise some usecases it's good at. It's opening an amazing new door in terms of storytelling and art for one. It's not shaking up the whole world but it doesn't have to to be a success. I'm a bit sick of these hype men calling everything a flop if it isn't providing their imaginary 2000% return in two years.
The same with AI. It's good at some things and totally sucks at many others. They're trying to shoehorn it into everything again and making it a failure.
For those who do fix things or build/craft them, a 3D printer is now a pretty standard and mature part of the toolset.
It did revolutionise things especially in the home (in the industry it already had, we just didn't know it because it was hidden behind prototype NDAs and hundreds of thousands of dollar price tags). That's pretty great for a piece of tech. It democratised the ability to custom design, share such designs and manufacture them reliably to the masses. Only a niche of the masses is interested in that because most of them are mindless consumer drones, but still.
People expect too much these days. VR was never going to revolutionise everything. That's just what some circlejerking investors were telling themselves. But it will revolutionise some usecases it's good at. It's opening an amazing new door in terms of storytelling and art for one. It's not shaking up the whole world but it doesn't have to to be a success. I'm a bit sick of these hype men calling everything a flop if it isn't providing their imaginary 2000% return in two years.
The same with AI. It's good at some things and totally sucks at many others. They're trying to shoehorn it into everything again and making it a failure.
Anybody who thought 3D printing was going to revolutionize manufacturing was delusional and didn't know a damn thing about how 3D printing works, specifically, how slow it is.
It's a game changer for making inexpensive prototypes and models, maybe. But nobody was going to FDM a mass-produced object. It's just too slow.
That said, for some hobbies, 3D printing is a godsend, especially once prices came down to the point where you could get an Ender 3 for $100.
So yeah..."cool and part of the future, but not a big part of the future" is pretty spot-on for 3D printing.
It's a game changer for making inexpensive prototypes and models, maybe. But nobody was going to FDM a mass-produced object. It's just too slow.
That said, for some hobbies, 3D printing is a godsend, especially once prices came down to the point where you could get an Ender 3 for $100.
So yeah..."cool and part of the future, but not a big part of the future" is pretty spot-on for 3D printing.
Until VR motion sickness is fixed it is a non-starter for a non-negligible part of the consumer public.
The entirety of this VR cycle feels like companies desperately looking for “that next thing” and leaping on VR because it kinda looked like there was traction.
VR needs the killer app outside of gaming. It's currently too cumbersome to be seriously productive in VR compared to using traditional monitors connected to computers. Consumers aren't dumb. When a product adds real value, they'll buy it.
"Look at this awesome thing we made that you don't want!"
[deleted]
VR companies are trying to make the iPhone of VR without considering that the iPhones success was built on decades of computing fundamentals. Before its possible to make good hardware and XR experiences, we'll need basic research in optics, display panels, tracking, multiview eye tracked foveated rendering, gaze correction, vari-focal, lossless wireless... the list can go on and on. Very few want to invest in solving these problems and simply wants to build a huge ecosystem with a large user base. Even Facebook/Meta, who have invested the most, have failed to tackle any of the major problems even after 10 years of being in the field. Since 2016 when 6-DoF tracked controllers became the norm, there hasn't been any major advancements other than slightly better visuals.
Looking at XR technology that has been successful, its usually because of a very clear focus on a specific application. VR flight and racing simulations with professional headsets like the Varjo appear seem far more developed. With a motion rig, these are good enough for training professionals. VR has solidified its place its this niche market at least. Microsoft's success often gets overlooked, but they have a $20B defense contract to supply IVAS AR headsets to the US military. If more companies focused on solving one of fundamental problems, it should eventually be possible to create a mainstream mass-market device that everyone will want to use.