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

361–370 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#361

Post by amitt »

brilliantcode wrote: post #357
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.

funny you should mention that. I did an AMA on Whale today and that was one of the questions:

https://askwhale.com/q/86968f/

Re: VR

#362

Post by tfinniga »

mtw wrote: post #287

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…

AR is the future, and will be much bigger than VR, but it is also a much harder problem to solve.

I know companies that are very interested in professional VR applications today using the Vive, but Hololens isn't practical yet. I think in a few more revs it will be really great. VR now, AR when it's ready, but AR will definitely be bigger.

Re: VR

#363

Post by dougb1102 »

I applied to YC about 2.5 yrs ago with a VR-focused company for new construction homes software. Got rejected. Fast-forward today and I've built a successful company with it. It'll take a few yrs for VR to get mass adoption, but it shouldn't stop people from starting a B2B VR company. I've seen a lot of tech since my TRS-80 days and can tell you that this one is going to be transformative in a lot of areas.

Re: VR

#364

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: VR

#365

Post by atomicUpdate »

mwseibel wrote: post #200
minimaxir wrote: post #2

> I think we are no more than two years away from an explosion of new consumer startups I remember reading similar sentiment two years ago, back when the Oculus started getting massive attention after their successful Kickstarter. There are counter arguments to the rise of VR. As mentioned, price and hardware are too high for casual use, but that will be fixed in time. What can't easily be fixed is that fact that it…

Big screen TVs aren't convenient either - but a huge number of households have them - VR doesn't have to be exactly like smartphones in order to be very popular

You can do other things while watching TV, though, like eat dinner, talk to your friends on the couch, pet your dog, etc. None of those things are possible with a VR headset on, making it very inconvenient to use.

It's unlikely people will even feel comfortable walking through the room, since they have no idea when the VR user is going to freak out and blindly start flailing body parts around reacting to something only they can see. This means the entire living room is off limits, which is also very inconvenient when compared to someone just sitting on the couch watching Netflix.

There are a lot of social hurdles that VR will need to overcome, in addition to each of the technical ones.

Re: VR

#366

Post by ngokevin »

EScott11 wrote: post #157

"3. New frameworks. Building and iterating VR apps is going to have to get a lot easier." Hasn't Unity already cemented itself as the go-to framework for VR? Has anyone seen anything better?

A-Frame (https://aframe.io) is picking up traction. For many people, Unity is still to difficult to learn, takes work to get an app going, and get distributed.

With A-Frame, you can build an VR site with just an HTML file, open it in your Vive, and publish to the Web immediately. Though it's just HTML, it's based on the same architecture as Unity (entity-component), and can do powerful applications (TiltBrush on the Web https://blog.mozvr.com/a-painter/).

Re: VR

#367

Post by glitch003 »

romaniv wrote: post #307
problems wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I've got a 4k setup with a GTX 1080 at home right now. I'm sort of debating about a Vive or another 1080 when I've got some extra cash to blow. The Vive seems harder to rationalize because it seems like a really expensive toy with only a few crappy games for it. Am I wrong about this? Is the VR really worth it? I keep reading awful things about the resolution and about motion sickness issues - I care ver…

The coolest thing about VR right now isn't the visuals, it's the controllers. Being able to move around and interact with things in virtual space is a very powerful experience/concept. I can actually see some future apps/games using controllers without the goggles.

> I can actually see some future apps/games using controllers without the goggles

This reminds me of the Nintendo Wii and Wii Tennis and all those other Wii sports games that were really fun.

Re: VR

#368

Post by c0nfused »

fooey wrote: post #360
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…

I thought the same thing until I tried it.

Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights.

On the exercise front, Not every game is a workout but at the same time even something simple like the default valve bow game from the lab can wear people out. After all, you are holding a weight at arms length for a while and simulating pulling back an arrow. Its mot a motion that many people do regularly.

Go borrow one or go to some local game meetup and try some's roomscale handset. Its amazing. I'm thinking about taking mine to the bar up the street on a weeknight hooking it up and getting everyone to try it.

Re: VR

#369

Post by paulryanrogers »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #226
superplussed wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider moon physics! I haven't heard anyone talk about this but I've thought this was the answer to locomotion in VR. It strikes a balance between realistic movement and not being too tiring, and moon jumping would be hella fun, especially in a FPS.

Ever played instagib with a low gravity mod in a regular FPS? It can be fun, but the gameplay becomes pretty limited, and I imagine the moon physics being similar in a VR FPS. Maybe projectile weapons only would make it work better, or the fact that hitscan is a lot harder in an HMD than with a monitor.

> can be fun, but the gameplay becomes pretty limited

If I recall correctly, low gravity often made me want to avoid jumping due to the lack of air control compared to ground running.

Re: VR

#370

Post by thenomad »

fooey wrote: post #354
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.

I don't know - quite a few people go running or play football (soccer) and both of those activities require physical exercise!

Soccer, for example, has 270 million active players. That's quite a few people who don't mind physical exertion.

Post reply on HN