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

Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#41

Post by simonhughes22 »

aphextron wrote: post #20
43224gg252 wrote: post #10

Is it safe to say that VR still has another decade (at least) before it gets any kind of wide spread adoption? I was hyped a couple years ago for VR but it feels like its fizzled out.

Yes. I was a hardcore fanboy, bought the DK2, had both Rift and Vive preorders on day one. Spent months making my own games and VR experiments in Unity. However I just sold all of my headsets last month. Theres been a lot of amazing stuff to come out of this generation of VR. But as hard as the software devs try, you simply can't get past the fact that the hardware isn't ready for primetime yet. The clunky controller…

Have you seen the TPCast? That makes the vive wireless, and can already by shipped from China, coming to the US later this year. Intel is also releasing something similar for the vive next year. So that is wireless. LG is bringing out a SteamVR headset later this year with a higher pixel density. And valve just sent out the Kunckles controller to devs, which has full on finger tracking. So we are not very far away from solving most of those problems.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#42

Post by beisner »

pavement wrote: post #39

I don't think anyone can really gauge VR's day-to-day casual consumer value. It's genuine applications are rare, and it's primary value is in deflecting hazardous situations onto remote operated robotic vehicles with telepresence. But humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time, unless real dangers are presented, so VR always feels like an undesirable compromise.

I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of domains where actual experiences are impossible. Think re-living an important moment in history, exploring the world with a hawks-eye view, or interacting in 3 dimensions with someone half-way across the globe. You can't exactly say that VR is a compromise in these situations, because there is no alternative.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#43

Post by sigstoat »

mtgx wrote: post #36
43224gg252 wrote: post #10

Is it safe to say that VR still has another decade (at least) before it gets any kind of wide spread adoption? I was hyped a couple years ago for VR but it feels like its fizzled out.

A decade seems like too much. Maybe 3-5 years. You know that expression "wait for the third generation" - I think it applies to VR headsets, too. I've also tried both Oculus Rift and Vive and despite what some may say, 1440p is just not enough. I feel like 4k needs to be the bare minimum resolution, so I don't plan on getting one until it has a 4k resolution. There are also other kinks to solve in the overall technol…

> You know that expression "wait for the third generation"

which generation are we on, now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#History

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#44

Post by borne0 »

Paul_S wrote: post #22

This is pointless, people are not buying VR because there is nothing there they really want to use it for, not because it costs too much. A gaming rig to run it will cost you more.

I think live sports and being able to switch between players/drone/sideline 360 views would be a killer app.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#45

Post by aphextron »

simonhughes22 wrote: post #41
aphextron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I was a hardcore fanboy, bought the DK2, had both Rift and Vive preorders on day one. Spent months making my own games and VR experiments in Unity. However I just sold all of my headsets last month. Theres been a lot of amazing stuff to come out of this generation of VR. But as hard as the software devs try, you simply can't get past the fact that the hardware isn't ready for primetime yet. The clunky controller…

Have you seen the TPCast? That makes the vive wireless, and can already by shipped from China, coming to the US later this year. Intel is also releasing something similar for the vive next year. So that is wireless. LG is bringing out a SteamVR headset later this year with a higher pixel density. And valve just sent out the Kunckles controller to devs, which has full on finger tracking. So we are not very far away fr…

TPCast is a huge step forward. No one saw that coming within a year of the major headsets launching. I've definitely got my eye on that stuff. But it's still huge and clunky at the end of the day. It won't be until the major manufacturers integrate this stuff that mainstream adoption hits.

I got into VR development with the mindset that the hardware will be ready in 5 years, and when it is the people who stuck with it through the times of disillusionment beyond the hype phase will be in prime position to start doing amazing things at scale. I'm personally waiting for the next gen of headsets now to do more full scale VR work. The current top level hardware is pushed to it's bounds in terms of adoption and it just doesn't make financial sense for developers yet. Until then, mobile is where it's at IMO. The integrated solutions from Samsung and Oculus on the horizon are really exciting.

The SteamVR Knuckles I think are a terrible idea. I wish Valve would get past the idea of controllers entirely. Any kind of physical game controller becomes extremely clunky and restrictive in VR. We need perfect finger tracking in the form of a lightweight pair of cloth gloves that you simply slip on like normal. VR allows such a complete paradigm shift in your ability to manipulate the environment that creating a traditional controller mapping inherently limits the way people will think about designing interactions. Rather than moving towards more intuitive actions, developers will be allowed to just fall back on old gameplay cliches of the console era.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#46

Post by rocky1138 »

pavement wrote: post #39

I don't think anyone can really gauge VR's day-to-day casual consumer value. It's genuine applications are rare, and it's primary value is in deflecting hazardous situations onto remote operated robotic vehicles with telepresence. But humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time, unless real dangers are presented, so VR always feels like an undesirable compromise.

> humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time

I love the idea of living in my virtual forest in Potioneer but I wouldn't want to do it for real.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#47

Post by sergiosgc »

aphextron wrote: post #26
Strom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define widespread adoption? When adding all the current gen VR systems together we're already over 10M units sold.

Those are really optimistic numbers which must include GearVR and its competitors, which are toys that most people do not consider true VR. Total sales for Rift, PSVR, and Vive are ~1.5 million units combined. All the others (OSVR, chinese clones, et. al.) might add up to 2 million total.

I don't know where you are getting the 2 million total, but it is wildly off:

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42707617

These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units. This is for the worse quarter of the year, post launch hype and off Christmas sales. I'd wager there are 5 million units of "serious" VR units out there.

Also of note, something I didn't know: The Vive is outselling Oculus Rift at almost a 2:1 ratio.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#48

Post by aphextron »

sergiosgc wrote: post #47
aphextron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are really optimistic numbers which must include GearVR and its competitors, which are toys that most people do not consider true VR. Total sales for Rift, PSVR, and Vive are ~1.5 million units combined. All the others (OSVR, chinese clones, et. al.) might add up to 2 million total.

I don't know where you are getting the 2 million total, but it is wildly off: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42707617 These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units. This is for the worse quarter of the year, post launch hype and off Christmas sales. I'd wager there are 5 million units of "serious" VR units out there. Also of note, something I didn't know: The Vive…

>These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units

Combined with the sales from last year, that's almost precisely the 1.5 million units I mentioned sold of the major 3.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#49

Post by avaer »

pavement wrote: post #39

I don't think anyone can really gauge VR's day-to-day casual consumer value. It's genuine applications are rare, and it's primary value is in deflecting hazardous situations onto remote operated robotic vehicles with telepresence. But humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time, unless real dangers are presented, so VR always feels like an undesirable compromise.

I'm not sure humans prefer "actual experiences" every single time; the business models of Facebook, Amazon, and Google depend on that not being the case.

Back when the internet was still low-res and slow people said the same thing about it: chatting, buying, and researching with a computer is an undesirable compromise. That's where we are with VR.

Anecdote: I fondly remember the days spent hacking AOL with people online, being ostracized and punished by people around me for not having "actual" experiences like going out and playing sports. These people now spend countless hours on Facebook and Instagram. Now apparently I need to be more social with actual people (on Facebook) instead of hacking with fake people in fake virtual reality.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#50

Post by [deleted] »

aphextron wrote: post #48
sergiosgc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you are getting the 2 million total, but it is wildly off: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42707617 These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units. This is for the worse quarter of the year, post launch hype and off Christmas sales. I'd wager there are 5 million units of "serious" VR units out there. Also of note, something I didn't know: The Vive…

>These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units Combined with the sales from last year, that's almost precisely the 1.5 million units I mentioned sold of the major 3.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN