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

381–390 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#381

Post by mozumder »

c0nfused wrote: post #368
fooey wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product.

VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment.

The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out how to solve the product liability issues. That problem still exists, which is why VR isn't going to be usable and is a dead-end.

Re: VR

#382

Post by andybak »

falcolas wrote: post #276
cr0sh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you describe the binocular effect, I know what you mean, however my experience is that all those issues fade away once your brain "accepts" the inputs and starts filtering out the noise. Personally, as someone who owned and purchased some of the early HMDs of the 1990s - these kind of comments look "interesting" to me. I mean, people are complaining about the "low FOV and resolution" - when they clearly never…

> they clearly never had to use HMDs with 20 degree FOV and 320 x 240 resolutions... Being better than what they had in the 90's doesn't mean it's good. It's still too low - like trying to view 4k content on a 720p display. > The key, though, was to stop focusing on the issue - which some people couldn't. Or the low resolution is thrown in your face. For example, attempting to view a virtual poster on a somewhat dist…

It's an problem the medium has to solve the way every other medium handles it's technological constraints. Pop music production was partly a way to handle the constraints of AM radio. Opera's vocal style was the result of the clash of large venues, growing orchestra's and the desire for solo vocals.

If VR can't render readable posters then good artists will stop putting posters in VR.

Re: VR

#383

Post by bsmith »

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…

> having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA

This is a step too far in my opinion. You already have to "crane your neck around" to see what's going on in the real world, all around you, all the time.

I'm also sure there are less physically demanding games/experiences for those interested. Pick your poison.

Re: VR

#384

Post by dmix »

aphextron wrote: post #156

As someone who owns both headsets from day one and has been developing software for Vive, I'd honestly say the current generation of tech just isn't worth it for most people. In five years when we have wireless headsets with eye tracking and full FOV displays with no discernible pixelation and the library of games are finally here it will be worth it. As it is most people would probably be let down after the initial…

What's stopping it from being wireless right now? Wifi technology or battery life?

Re: VR

#385

Post by djrogers »

freehunter wrote: post #274
31reasons wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay more attention to reality and you will notice that it does way more than current VR gadgets offer.

My computer doesn't perfectly replace reality either, it must be a fad.

My computer doesn't literally claim to be Virtual Reality either though - so that's a bit of a straw man. That's like saying my car doesn't perfectly replace reality either, clearly nobody ever claimed it would...

Re: VR

#386

Post by fooey »

thenomad wrote: post #370
fooey wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's fair to compare VR to Soccer, it's more equivalent to home treadmills, or something like a bowflex. An expensive niche product that usually just gets left in the corner getting dusty.

Re: VR

#387

Post by dmix »

davebryand wrote: post #267
rictic wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the Vive is a little like the release iPhone. It has all of the pieces, but it's also clunky and extravagant. You had to have a pretty good imagination to look at any 2004 phone and envision the iPhone, but once you had the 1st gen iPhone it's pretty easy to imagine a modern smartphone. It's pretty much just the same thing only more so.

I don't know, that first iPhone was pretty special. Just having a fantastic web browser (mobile Safari) was a game changer. The gap feels bigger with VR, to me.

Pre-app store iPhones? (and all of the software that it massively incentivized?)

Or just the phones themselves?

Re: VR

#388

Post by andybak »

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…

Recroom's Paintball is is one of the most popular and constantly active multipler VR games and that is all about movement.

http://vrlfg.net/ also shows Onward as being very popular - also very movement based.

(one thing worth noting in that page is how low current play counts are relative to other games. Currently there's not enough people in VR to support more than a handful of multiplayer games)

Re: VR

#389

Post by fooey »

bsmith wrote: post #383
fooey wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA This is a step too far in my opinion. You already have to "crane your neck around" to see what's going on in the real world, all around you, all the time . I'm also sure there are less physically demanding games/experiences for those interested. Pick your poison.

In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head.

As you're playing games or working, the only time you ever turn your head is when something external distracts you, and you can resolve it in a split second. If you're using VR and something external distracts you, you have to abandon whatever your doing and dismount the device.

Re: VR

#390

Post by nojvek »

mozumder wrote: post #381
c0nfused wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out ho…

I agree. I own a occipital bridge. The resolution needs to get 5x better than retina to be believable.

Also 6dof tracking with hand gesture tracking under 10ms is still a challenge. I think it's possible but needs serious hardware advancements.

I love my bridge though. No hanging cables is definitely a good thing

Post reply on HN