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

391–400 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#391

Post by aphextron »

dmix wrote: post #384
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?

Nothing actually. The tech is there and they are releasing multiple third party wireless addons for the Vive this year, but none of the major HMD's come with wireless as standard yet.

Re: VR

#392

Post by tpolischuk »

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.

Elite dangerous (if you're into realistic space sims) could easily eat 1000+ hours of gameplay.

Re: VR

#393

Post by mhomde »

thenomad wrote: post #119
celticninja wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What background did you have before you went into VR? Anywhere you would point beginners who want to get started?

I've been making Machinima films using game engines for the past 20 years or so, including working with people like EA, the BBC, et al. (I'm actually the guy who coined the word "Machinima", with a colleague, because we needed a better way to describe what we did than "Quake Movie".) So I had a lot of game engine experience before I jumped in. As for beginners getting started: Unity, Unity, Unity. Grab Unity and star…

From another Quake veteran big kudos for Quake Done Quick(er). The good old days :)

Re: VR

#394

Post by fooey »

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…

I have a hard time seeing anything you're pitching as much beyond what you could get with a Wii, and that's completely dead and abandoned. How many people bought Wii fitness? Is that enough of a demographic to expect there to be an entire new ecosystem supporting it?

I get that the technology is amazing, I just don't see it getting much mass market penetration.

Re: VR

#395

Post by duckingtest »

cr0sh wrote: post #116
seibelj wrote: post #9

One thing I can't stand is the resolution, it really needs to be 2x-10x increased for me not to feel like I'm staring really closely at a screen. And when you increase the resolution by an order of magnitude, you need more processing power, which makes it harder to solve the giant problem of the size, cost, and awkwardness of the hardware. I can't wait until contact lenses are VR enabled.

> I can't wait until contact lenses are VR enabled. I doubt this will happen, simply because physics and optics won't allow it (unfortunately - because I'd love VR contact lenses myself!)...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/02/high-ef...

Re: VR

#396

Post by cbhl »

fooey wrote: post #389
bsmith wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Unless you wear glasses.

Re: VR

#397

Post by chejazi »

amitt wrote: post #377
chejazi wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting... sounds like a pivot from what's shown on http://ossovr.com

Re: VR

#398

Post by vehementi »

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.

And you've shown somewhere, I assume, that "that reason" is definitively and primarily that physical exertion doesn't work for people and necessarily prevents mass market appeal?

Re: VR

#399

Post by freehunter »

djrogers wrote: post #385
freehunter wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Well I mean if it was reality it would be called "reality". It's a virtual representation of reality, which is why it's called "virtual reality". A video game isn't the real world, it's a virtual representation of a world, so it's called a "virtual world". And Nintendo's head-mounted video game system from the 90s wasn't a real boy, it was a "virtual boy".

What I'm getting at is this argument stems from semantics. Of course VR is never going to replace the real world. That was never its intent. The goal is to not replace reality but rather to simulate it. That's why the name has "virtual" in it.

Re: VR

#400

Post by catshirt »

callmeed wrote: post #333
catshirt wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "VR doesn't even replicate reality" if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if. if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.

See my other comment. That was a specific reply to the notion that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ... He/she is saying "VR replicates reality and more", while I'm saying "no, VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone anything beyond it" No need to get pedantic about the grammar.

not trying to be a pedant and i completely understood the context. we're talking about tense, not grammar. there is a huge difference between saying "VR is not good right now" and "VR will never be good".

"Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality"

i'm assuming OP meant "VR [has the possibility to] not merely replicate reality." or "[ideally] VR can not merely replicate reality...".

we're trying to predict a trend- how well developed the technology is now seems less relevant than it's end-game.

Post reply on HN