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

371–380 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#371

Post by ajsalminen »

746F7475 wrote: post #259

> Because VR games are so physical, gaming will no longer be perceived as an unhealthy activity. I could have used this growing up. What kind of VR games are you playing? I haven't seen a single physically demanding VR game (unless you count standing "physical"). Unless everyone is going to have a dedicated room for their games or we come up with some kind of rental halls there won't be any physical activity in VR ga…

Holopoint, Sword Master VR, Audioshield are some of the more physically intensive titles. Something like Onward is not intense exercise but will get you kneeling etc. instead of just standing. Even standing and doing things with your hands is better than sitting and playing a non-VR game.

Re: VR

#372

Post by chejazi »

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…

Nitpick:

tools for sales people: OssoVR

Osso is for surgeons, not sales people. Or am I missing something?

Re: VR

#373

Post by atomicUpdate »

thenomad wrote: post #103
madamelic wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>looking at creativity / design / conferencing apps, probably for enterprise. I would too except for the fact headsets cost $800 and the computers to run them cost thousands. Once price drops and it gets wide use, it will be a goldmine for early developers.

The pitch I'd do is basically this: "OK, how many times do you send your designers away to have a meeting with their colleagues in other offices? And how much do the flights and hotel cost? Well, you could eliminate 9/10 of those flights, hotel, travel time costs, and the rest by buying this one headset and upgrading their PCs - oh, and buying my proprietory design app..." By the looks of it, Autodesk have had much t…

> buying this one headset

I don't want to share anything that goes on my face with anyone in the office I work with. Just passing one around the conference room to each of the execs during your pitch should make that obvious pretty quickly.

I don't see VR as a useful replacement for video conferencing. You don't get any more body language and arguably less facial cues than standard video conferencing. If an engineer is getting sent somewhere, it's typically because they need to physically interact with something, which you also don't get with VR. For designers, I suspect the low resolution and inability to import and (especially) edit whatever designs they're looking at would prevent VR from being useful also.

Re: VR

#374

Post by andybak »

callmeed wrote: post #216
sixQuarks wrote: post #115

I can't believe some people are saying VR is a fad, that it's not going to work, etc, etc. Are you kidding me? The only real question is how long it's going to take before it's fully integrated into our daily lives, there is absolutely no doubt this will happen (unless we somehow go backwards technologically, due to world war or some other unforeseen event). It may not happen for another 10-15 years, but it WILL happ…

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.

> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches.

I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing.

I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2.

This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and not in the way Laserdisc had it's "enthusiasts" - it's the kind of tech that makes people want to switch careers.

I think it's fortunate that VR has coincided with the rise of crowdfunding and the renaissance of indie devs. That is going to help see it through it's difficult early patch.

Re: VR

#375

Post by beders »

Baloney. Unless the form factor improves significantly, this will disappear again quickly.

AR has a much much better shot at mass market adoption.

Re: VR

#376

Post by adammunich »

JacobKyle wrote: post #255
awwstn wrote: post #59

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…

Re: inside out tracking - have you seen Bridge? It's a mobile, spatially aware headset for IOS. It uses an onboard Structure Sensor to power positionally tracked VR + high end MR. All on an iphone (no remote processing), and We've been working on it in secret for a couple of years, and just launched it in December. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iys8yo0sjYg

Still waiting to see what y'all do with structure core. Bridge is too expensive for OEMs :-)

Re: VR

#377

Post by amitt »

chejazi wrote: post #372
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…

Nitpick: tools for sales people: OssoVR Osso is for surgeons, not sales people. Or am I missing something?

Sales people at medical device companies. They need to learn how to use the devices and then easily demo them to customers. It's also used by the end customers, after the sale is made.

Re: VR

#378

Post by andybak »

iplaw wrote: post #10

Blown away? Hyperbole of the century. At CES this year, I tried all the VR/AR tech I could get my hands on. Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Sony VR, Galaxy Gear, and everything in between. I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pai…

"Hyperbole" implies you think he's not being honest but then later you say "I feel like I the only one that feels such disappointment" which suggests you do think it's a genuine reaction which you are in the minority by not sharing.

So - which is it?

Re: VR

#379

Post by andybak »

nsxwolf wrote: post #268
MorePowerToYou wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the initial experience very compelling, too. Unfortunately, that initial thrill wears off fast. I challenge you to buy a Vive and report back in a few months with your daily usage level.

My daily usage level has dropped, but mostly it is due to the lack of new interesting software. When you read this thread, or /r/Vive or anywhere else, it's always the same story: people talking enthusiastically about games that came out months ago. The same ones, over and over. Space Pirate Trainer. Holopoint. H3VR. Job Simulator. I'm really bored of those.

Define 'months'. I can name half a dozen games of equal quality that came out in the last 6 weeks.

Re: VR

#380

Post by wincy »

freehunter wrote: post #306
JabavuAdams wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The games I like the best works better without VR. Sim racing games could be one exception, but are, for the moment, better with a triple monitor setup. Games like Pillars of Eternity have no need for VR, IMO. This is a very valid criticism. The current limitations of VR require developers to design different kinds of games. I found Valve's The Lab to be excellent. It's frustrating as a designer, because you may no…

I haven't actually played any games in VR yet, but is there any reason the headset couldn't display a normal game? Even if it doesn't need VR and doesn't benefit in any way from head tracking or 3D visuals, just imagining a hypothetical future situation where all 2D monitors on the face of the Earth are replaced by VR headsets, you could still play Pillars of Eternity on a VR headset and it wouldn't be any worse, rig…

SteamVR has a theater mode. The issue is the pixel density isn't really as high as you'd like it to be. You're using 2160x1200 resolution to render over most of your field of view, so the effective resolution of a rendered TV/cinema screen is actually lower than you might like. It's like playing on a 720p or maybe even a little lower resolution. Also, how will you see your mouse? That's actually not a huge problem if all monitors were replaced there could just be mouse tracking in the simulation.

It's possible, but the resolution and pixel density has to go up before it can be an effective replacement for the amazing screens we have.

Post reply on HN