321–330 of 568 posts
Just finished reading Ready Player One, and have never put on a VR unit. This post is timely. I can see having a very similar reaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you. You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.
> VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad. It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether…
> Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...
What's the model for building apps, then. Oculus is owned by Facebook. How do you create a game - does it require a paid SDK?
Some people are talking about app building. Unity and Unreal 4 are both game engines which means they run simulations. Since they use C# and C++ among other languages, and the target is desktop PC, you can run any software. They both also have other ways to write logic with triggers or blueprints, etc.
Kind of odd that it takes yc this long to understand such a world changing technology. And their point is that other vcs are even more pessimistic and unexcited about technology. It really shows you how absolutely myopic and limited the current startup ecosystem is. Many thousands of people could tell VR was real this time back when Oculus did a Kickstarter. But vcs take +n years? Shows how much room for improvement…
If VR really takes off am I going to be unable to join in or will it work with one eye?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really surprising to me to see so many people on HN poo-poo on VR like they do, for this reason. Isn't this site supposed to be about startups, entrepreneurship, being forward thinking, etc? Where are the "thought leaders"? If you can't see the huge potential for VR, there is something wrong.
> If you can't see the huge potential for VR, there is something wrong. Or, we see so many game-breaking limitations (cost, FOV, resolution, VR sickness) and are tired of the "give it 5 years" rhetoric that assumes magic will happen to fix it. Or we're simply not convinced that what it offers is that much better than a regular old computer screen. How does VR change my daily activity of programming? Of watching movie…
And VR sickness is not really a thing for the vast majority of people. It gets hyped up by the press a lot. I've put hundreds of people through intense VR experiences over thirty or forty minutes long. In that time, ONE person had issues. I've seen higher proportions of people get nauseous from regular, first-person shooter PC games.
Nobody wants VR. You can try and ram it down our throats all you want with TV adds showing befuddled old people discovering the wonders of a phone strapped to their head, or calling VR systems a "hot Christmas gift," but that won't change the fact that nobody wants it. It's too awkward, and it makes the user too vulnerable. You cannot create this market.
Your message reminds me of Steve Ballmer, 2007: > "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get." But t…
If the headsets cost $50, they'd still be a novelty. Case in point: Many cell phone users have the ability to use some of this technology today with a low-cost addon. I'm no hermit and apart from some reddit posts, I have yet to see a single person using any VR device.
I repeat, most people don't want VR, and even most who do find it underwhelming at best, nauseating at worst. The comments here are evidence of that.
AR is another matter. AR has a bright future.
The challenges for VR today can be summed up in a few points: - The price point (a high-end VR experience costs around $2800 ($800 HTC Vive + a $2000 PC) - Resolution (even the best VR is too low-res today) - Inside-out tracking (explained below) - Content – there are great games and other immersive content today, but it's just scratching the surface Apart from content, all of these challenges will be handily solved…
I am both a huge proponent and skeptic of VR. I am no veteran but to my credit I was dabbling with VR many years before Oculus ran its Kickstarter. I am skeptical in the short term because the hardware is still struggling to keep up with the demands (at a reasonable price point). Maintaining 90-120 FPS with any sort of detail is much more difficult than 30 FPS. I am a proponent in the long term because there is defin…
In the long term I can see it being a huge social tool (to the
point where people might regularly meet their significant other
in a virtual environment, if the rendering is accurate enough).
The sense of logic that wearing goggles will let you see people and be seen is, outside of cultural context (sci-fi movies, books, and TV), a non-sequitur. It's like expecting current consumer Hoverboards to replace bridges. (They can't fly.)
If you start to expound on how you think people can meet in virtual reality, then it might be more useful.
If you know anything about visual effects, then you know that with motion capture it's possible to animate digital characters. Do people want to put on black clothes with white dots in order to look like themselves?
Along that line, if you take together existing technologies like VR, mo-cap, custom avatars, kinect, Second Life, and OKCupid - and combine them, then you're going to find the bottom of the uncanny valley.
Am I the only one who's more excited by mixed reality such as Hololens? I can't imagine VR being as omnipresent in our daily lives in its current state. Oculus or Vive implies you are shutting yourself from the outside world. You cannot interact. You cannot go out, talk with others etc. It's easy however to imaging how Hololens can enhance existing reality and how anyone (even my grandmother) could use it for their d…
I feel the same way. In Sam Altman's most recent interview he talked about hours of use per day being an important metric for a new product. It seems like the first high-use product in this category will be a lightweight regular looking set of glasses that simply displays your notifications. Then in the future, add a camera to display overlays on the real world.
In our current tech landscape, we mostly interact with the digital world through screens. AR has the potential to turn any real world object into a human-computer interface. I definitely think AR technology is going to be nothing short of revolutionary once it matures, possibly even more so than the advent of the modern smartphone.