Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VR

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#351

Post by klintwood »

corford wrote: post #347
klintwood wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "3D" effect is one of the least exciting features of VR headsets. If that was all VR had to offer it would be just as much of a gimmick as 3D Video. You will still get all the benefits of moving your head around, motion controls and so on.

Awesome! My main worry was depth perception stuff being problematic (I have occasional issues with that irl but no idea if it would be the same, better or worse in VR).

It should be very nearly the same in VR. You will still get the parallax from moving your head, even small rotation can add a lot to depth perception. Best try it out before you buy it. If you don't have a store offering demos near you, many VR enthusiasts enjoy showing off their hardware to others just as much as playing themselves.

Re: VR

#352

Post by fooey »

legohead wrote: post #11

It's not going to take off until someone solves the movement issue. The only games VR is currently suitable for are if you are stationary somehow -- pilot, tank gunner, etc. Which limits it pretty severely. Something like the Ghostbusters Experience[1] is what people want in their own homes. Also, maybe it's because I've been gaming my whole life, but the resolution in VR is still not good enough to "blow" me away, l…

Roomscale VR is a complete DOA gimmick in the home. The Wii and the Kinect proved that physical UI's are not fun and don't have durable appeal.

Re: VR

#353

Post by fooey »

Jack000 wrote: post #153
phn wrote: post #43

I think that AR (think magic leap) is going to be much bigger, at least in the short term. VR is like the desktop. It will have its uses, sure, but you'll be tied to your desk/room. Gaming will probably still be the most popular VR application. Your AR glasses will be your smartphone, on you the entire time, and you won't even need to reach for your pocket.

I think there's a bit too much exuberance around VR and AR at the moment. I can imagine a future where fully immersive AR is technically possible, but no one uses it because it's annoying or inconvenient. Sort of like how video calls are possible now but most people just text.

The convenience factor is being completely ignored by the enthusiasts. There is absolutely no plausible day to day use case for VR like there was for something like a smart phone.

VR games are the same sort of short term gimmicks that failed with the Wii and Kinect. The technology is amazing, it's just not very useful.

Re: VR

#354

Post by fooey »

thenomad wrote: post #50

Nice to see some other people pointing out the positive effects here. As a (room-scale only) VR developer, I've been writing about the upsides of VR and VR gaming for some time - example, http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/05/three-un... . There's a lot of skepticism around this area, particularly the claim that games will actually make people fitter - but you only have to play a few rounds of Holopoint…

On the flip side, that fact that VR is such a physical exertion is exactly why it will absolutely not have a mass market appeal.

There's a reason why the Wii and the Kinect were cute and cool, but both failed to get any real market traction.

VR as a fitness device might be a thing, but that's nothing like the market of gaming consoles or pc's.

Re: VR

#355

Post by brilliantcode »

I'm going to politely disagree with this article. It's overly optimistic and draws largely from anecdotal preferences and insights.

I believe that VR will fail for the same reasons blockchain has failed to reach critical mass, there's just no overwhelming pain it solves, it's nice to have but great majority of people still do not appreciate having a bright screen inches away from your eyes and the hardware while it will certainly get better, may be addressing immersion the wrong way.

A truly game breaking VR device is one that would not require strapping screen to your face, we will see what's out there on the market but it's still very much too early to say whether it's going to have the legs it needs to reach critical mass.

I could be totally wrong and we might end up staring into empty spaces on the Skytrain with people manipulating VR objects with wild hand movements. Sort of the same shift in how smartphones have made people hunched over a small screen or talking to the air with earphones with microphones.

I believe agumented reality is a much more subtle and gradual adoption where it won't require a powerful device but with gentle gestures or possibly even reading your mind's will to issue commands without having to deal with a touch screen. The Google glass is great but I think the killer app would be something you can install on your prescription glasses that projects layered UI and makes it "smart". We would be living in a self organized surveillance state where it's no longer necessary for a government to keep track of everything but peer based apps that shames socially negative behavior and the fear of such reprisals will be at a far far higher level than we have today.

We are living in a time where every new critical mass technology (ex. facebook) are essentially "cigarettes", widely accepted and normalized but not fully understanding it's consequences.

Re: VR

#356

Post by ehsanu1 »

hackuser wrote: post #335
timdeneau wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re mostly intrigued with 1:1 locomotion and agility in competitive multiplayer. For instance players who can run a marathon, or throw a baseball, will have a distinct competitive advantage over players who cannot. But, in theory, if you played enough it would supplement physical training. But moon jumping would be a fun game concept :)

> We’re mostly intrigued with 1:1 locomotion and agility That doesn't sound appealing in many cases. As a game critic once wrote about the limits of realism: I am not a ninja.

For the casual gamer it may not be interesting, though that depends on the learning curve - eg regular sports can be pretty challenging and physically exhausting, yet people play them casually.

But in particular competitive gaming and esports would get a lot more interesting this way.

Re: VR

#357

Post by brilliantcode »

amitt wrote: post #336

I run a VR-focused VC firm (Presence Capital). We've done 25+ investments in this space, so you can say that we believe in the long-term potential of VR. Even given that, we're bearish on how quickly there will be a profitable/sustainable VR consumer business and have advised most of our portfolio companies targeting consumers to keep burn low. That being said, almost all of the comments here are taking a singular wo…

Genuinely curious but what are your thoughts on VR porn being a thing? Recall that porn on the internet has really been one of the first to start accepting credit cards. The old adage "internet is for porn" rings true.

Re: VR

#358

Post by return0 »

I expect lightweight, ergonomic VR or AR to replace desktop monitors in a few years. which means desks may no longer be needed. time to short IKEA - oh wait they re not listed.

Re: VR

#359

Post by corford »

klintwood wrote: post #351
corford wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome! My main worry was depth perception stuff being problematic (I have occasional issues with that irl but no idea if it would be the same, better or worse in VR).

It should be very nearly the same in VR. You will still get the parallax from moving your head, even small rotation can add a lot to depth perception. Best try it out before you buy it. If you don't have a store offering demos near you, many VR enthusiasts enjoy showing off their hardware to others just as much as playing themselves.

Thanks for that, sounds promising. Will keep an eye out (haha) for somewhere offering demos and give it a whirl.

Re: VR

#360

Post by fooey »

evo_9 wrote: post #12

I bought a Vive the week of Thanksgiving and have been using it roughly 2 hours a day. Every other day is my workout day most of the week (unless I'm playing hockey that day/night) and the VIVE has become part of my workout now too. After I complete my normal workout - a mixture of hockey specific training, free weights, aerobic and of course tons of pull-ups - I now spend an additional hour+ in VR. I typically play…

Maybe I'm just lazy, but VR games requiring physical exertion have absolutely zero appeal to me. I want to sit back with a keyboard and controller and relax. I include any kind of room scale in that assessment, and personally, just the idea of wearing a thing on your face and having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA.

I honestly and truly don't understand why people think VR is going to get any kind of mass market penetration.

Post reply on HN