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

Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#121

Post by throwaway34241 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #5

How's the market for VR doing in general? Is it growing or shrinking? Around the time the first Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive, and Microsoft's HoloLens were released some years back seemed to be high water mark of media stories about VR. Since then it seems to be pretty quiet. Is VR dying on the vine?

It's not dying, for full fledged VR (i.e. not Cardboard/GearVR) the active user base is small but persistently growing.

There's a of low hanging fruit for improvement in the first wave that came out recently. Needing to be tethered with a cable to a $1000 PC is one of the big ones, and that should be addressed by the Quest in a few months.

I don't know how it will compare to mobile phone growth, but I expect VR to grow at a much faster rate once the Quest comes out. It will bring the entry cost to $400 (from ~$1400 for most people, who don't already have gaming PCs), remove one of the biggest nuisances (the cable), and be drastically easier to set up. The software library is still small but better than it was a few years ago.

Also keep in mind there's huge numbers of people who haven't ever tried VR yet. The Quest is likely to get in front of a much larger number of potential customers since it's so easy for a friend or relative etc to bring it over compared to the current non-portable systems.

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#122

Post by shostack »

throwaway66666 wrote: post #14
pmoriarty wrote: post #5

How's the market for VR doing in general? Is it growing or shrinking? Around the time the first Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive, and Microsoft's HoloLens were released some years back seemed to be high water mark of media stories about VR. Since then it seems to be pretty quiet. Is VR dying on the vine?

I have spent quite sometime with Vive, Rift and PSVR. (rift, psvr at home, vive at my office) PSVR is unironically the hope for VR right now, even though it has by far the lowest quality. It has some very good games (Astrobot, Wipeout, RE7, Ace Combat 7, Moss, Beat Saber). It's cheap, easy to set up (aimed towards couch VR instead of room scale), cool helmet design, and the fact that the headset works as a regular mo…

For Elite: Dangerous fans, what's the current best bet for a VR setup if one doesn't have 4 USB ports? Is there even an option?

I got a gaming laptop right as the first VR headsets were coming out, and I'm just at the cusp of being able to power them with my setup, but the input ports may be my limiting factor.

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#123

Post by coldtea »

EpicEng wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was because of high early adopter price. Not because "huh, why would I want one" given the price being alright.

Ok, so we agree that they didn't explode in the early 90's. Good.

Nope. Mobile phones grew from a few dozens of millions to a billion users throughout the 90s. The started growing around 1991 and never looked back or stalled.

In case you forgotten what we're disputing, a grand-grand parent wrote "[VR] It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle" and another replied: "Mobile” was the same until it was just everywhere".

To which I replied that no, mobile wasn't "like that" (= a constant hype/disappointment cycle).

Mobile started growing fast (exploded) in early nineties and KEPT growing. Like with the iPod (that broke in early 00s and kept growing and growing until it was superseded by smartphones), there were no hype/disappointment cycles with mobile.

VR, on the other hand, did have hype/disappointment cycles. In 90-92 VR was touted as the "next big thing", then the craze passed and it disappeared (living only the legacy of having inspired the Lawnmower Man movie), taking 15+ years to re-emerge.

Similar, AI was touted as "imminent" in the 70s, only to break down in the 80s (the so-called AI-winter) and it took 20+ years to drive back mainstream tech interest again.

Mobile, on the contrary, never stalled once it got going.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_...

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#124

Post by fivefive55 »

shostack wrote: post #122
throwaway66666 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have spent quite sometime with Vive, Rift and PSVR. (rift, psvr at home, vive at my office) PSVR is unironically the hope for VR right now, even though it has by far the lowest quality. It has some very good games (Astrobot, Wipeout, RE7, Ace Combat 7, Moss, Beat Saber). It's cheap, easy to set up (aimed towards couch VR instead of room scale), cool helmet design, and the fact that the headset works as a regular mo…

For Elite: Dangerous fans, what's the current best bet for a VR setup if one doesn't have 4 USB ports? Is there even an option? I got a gaming laptop right as the first VR headsets were coming out, and I'm just at the cusp of being able to power them with my setup, but the input ports may be my limiting factor.

Windows Mixed Reality headset is your best bet in my opinion. I just got a Samsung Odyssey+ for $300 dollars. It has the exact same high res oled screen as the vive pro, and it only has an HDMI and USB 3.0 connector. Doesn't even require external power. Worked right out of the box for me with Elite as well and looked amazing. So much clearer than my Vive.

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#125

Post by EpicEng »

coldtea wrote: post #123
EpicEng wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so we agree that they didn't explode in the early 90's. Good.

Nope. Mobile phones grew from a few dozens of millions to a billion users throughout the 90s. The started growing around 1991 and never looked back or stalled. In case you forgotten what we're disputing, a grand-grand parent wrote "[VR] It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle" and another replied: "Mobile” was the same until it was just everywhere". To which I replied that no, mobile wasn't "like that" (= a constan…

I think your definition of "early nineties" is off, and that plot doesn't show what you think it does. Let's recap your own statements.

You: There was an explosion of mobile phone use in the early nineties.

Me: no there wasn't.

You: well that's only because the tech was too expensive.

Me: glad we agree.

You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's.

Me: ?

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#126

Post by coldtea »

EpicEng wrote: post #125
coldtea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Mobile phones grew from a few dozens of millions to a billion users throughout the 90s. The started growing around 1991 and never looked back or stalled. In case you forgotten what we're disputing, a grand-grand parent wrote "[VR] It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle" and another replied: "Mobile” was the same until it was just everywhere". To which I replied that no, mobile wasn't "like that" (= a constan…

I think your definition of "early nineties" is off, and that plot doesn't show what you think it does. Let's recap your own statements. You: There was an explosion of mobile phone use in the early nineties. Me: no there wasn't. You: well that's only because the tech was too expensive. Me: glad we agree. You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000…

I think you're confused.

Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s.

Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going.

Just as in the chart.

As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later.

>You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's.

Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today).

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#127

Post by EpicEng »

throwaway34241 wrote: post #117
coldtea wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it was just that. A continuous growth from 100M 1990 to 1B in 2000 and onwards: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_...

Am I reading your linked chart wrong? No matter how I look at it, it says 100M in 2000 and a negligible amount in 1990 (instead of 100M in 1990 and 1B in 2000).

This guy is trolling us or... I don't even know what.

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#128

Post by EpicEng »

coldtea wrote: post #126
EpicEng wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your definition of "early nineties" is off, and that plot doesn't show what you think it does. Let's recap your own statements. You: There was an explosion of mobile phone use in the early nineties. Me: no there wasn't. You: well that's only because the tech was too expensive. Me: glad we agree. You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000…

I think you're confused. Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s. Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going. Just as in the chart. As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later. > You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an ex…

>I think you're confused.

Nope

>Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s.

Never said that

>Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going.

No, explosion means something along the lines of "a sudden outburst". Anything that plods along slowly cannot be considered an explosion. The slope of your own reference is rather timid until at the later nineties.

>As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later.

Not the same thing. The tech simply didn't exist. At least, not in a manner which we would deem acceptable. Cell phone tech was fine, but it was simply too expensive.

>Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today).

It is not "sustained": it begins increasing rapidly in the late 90's! In other words, it "explodes". Let's be honest here; in a response to another person you claimed that the plot showed 1B users, but the Y axis only goes to 300M. I'm not convinced you can even read that thing.

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#129

Post by coldtea »

throwaway34241 wrote: post #117
coldtea wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it was just that. A continuous growth from 100M 1990 to 1B in 2000 and onwards: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_...

Am I reading your linked chart wrong? No matter how I look at it, it says 100M in 2000 and a negligible amount in 1990 (instead of 100M in 1990 and 1B in 2000).

No, I just typed the numbers wrongly (I had bookmarked 3 charts with similar data, but ended up pasting the link to the US user's growth).

Globally the numbers were ~15M in 1990, ~100M 1995, ~0.8B in 2000 (far from 100M in 2000).

And my point was, mobile exploded in 1990 and "kept expanding" (literally my words") -- there was like VR "a constant hype/disappointment cycle" (literally the thing I was responding to in this very thread).

Re: Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio

#130

Post by coldtea »

EpicEng wrote: post #127
throwaway34241 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I reading your linked chart wrong? No matter how I look at it, it says 100M in 2000 and a negligible amount in 1990 (instead of 100M in 1990 and 1B in 2000).

This guy is trolling us or... I don't even know what.

Or you, know, typed a number wrong.

In any case, it's not really debatable: mobile grew and kept growing. I know, I was there in those "early nineties".

Post reply on HN