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

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 182 posts

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#121

Post by shifto »

sytelus wrote: post #119
unlinked_dll wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not. The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

XR is very much tech a problem. Wearing headsets have induced headaches for me within 30 mins. The resolution is choppy. Field of view makes everything non-convincing. There is actually ton of content which is good for 5 minutes of demo-surprise factor but failing to have much of stickiness. I expect games to be major play for XR but they have to compete with 4K OLED which will now be ray casted. Adding 3D to limited…

As someone who plays a lot of Beat Saber and Elite Dangerous in VR daily, I don't agree. Sure some people get sick from VR but things like resolution and FOV are more than good enough for everyone I have ever showed something VR.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#122

Post by celticninja »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

I am probably a key demographic for them tech enthusiast, gamer with disposable income to cover these sorts of purchases, but the motion sickness aspect would need to be non-existent for me to spend any money on one of these.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#123

Post by NotCamelCase »

kayoone wrote: post #36
unlinked_dll wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not. The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

I tried Oculus only once, the first one that was sold world-wide, I believe. It was cool, but that was basically it for me. My main concern with it has always been the fact that it requires putting a device on my head for non-significant amount of time and I'm not sure about its health effects. Anybody know any research or studies that were done to this end?

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#124

Post by andybak »

tus88 wrote: post #79
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv. If people don't want to wear a bit of flimsy cardboard they sure as hell don't want to wear a plastic sarcophagus on their head.

> The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv

No we're not.

I never had the slightest interest in 3D TV. VR was compelling enough that it made me change my main focus towards learning interactive 3D.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#125

Post by nindalf »

kolinko wrote: post #101
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

As for VR being anti-social - from my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been visiting my friends who have VR, and organised VR mini-parties at my place. The setup goes like this: you show what's in VR on a tv screen, one person plays, and others watch, taking turns. Works extremely well with Beat Saber, FNAF, and some shooters. I also did social painting in VR, where people took turns drawing in Tilt Brush, an…

There are two kinds of HN comments.

The first is like the one GP made - absolutely sure of themselves and staying with certainty that there are intractable problems with something. On closer inspection you find that they have no personal experience but they’re really smart and can imagine the worst consequences of everything well.

The second is the one I’m replying to. They have first hand experience and give a more balanced take on the situation.

I’m happy that we get to read both kinds of comments.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#126

Post by realharo »

tus88 wrote: post #79
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv. If people don't want to wear a bit of flimsy cardboard they sure as hell don't want to wear a plastic sarcophagus on their head.

It reminds me more of the early days of touchscreen phone apps.

There were a lot of super gimmicky apps (remember the virtual beer app?), games whose sole reason for existence was that they could use the accelerometer (as a crappy steering wheel, etc.). Remember the shake gesture?

Granted this is far from a perfect comparison, but my point is that the content and usage patterns of smartphones have evolved, often in a different direction than people imagined 10 years ago.

Another example, early YouTube content was also very different from today's YouTube content, etc.

If VR is still around 10 years from now, I expect the use cases, UI patterns, etc. will be quite different from the vision that most people have today.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#127

Post by Tepix »

russellbeattie wrote: post #83
moron4hire wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you buy the headset that they didn't list the phones that are compatible with it?

Why would I have ever thought that Google would artificially limit compatibility? It never crossed my mind. I just assumed the listed phones were popular examples - and since mine had the same version of Android as the Pixels/Galaxies, I didn't worry about it. When did you decide to become an internet troll?

It says so on the box: "Requires a Daydream-ready phone, see full list at g.co/daydream"

It also explains why:

Daydream-ready phones are built for VR with high-resolution displays, ultra smooth graphics and high-fidelity sensors for precise head tracking.

These requirements were created to ensure a good experience, not to troll you.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#128

Post by ericskiff »

kayoone wrote: post #36
unlinked_dll wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not. The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

I agreed with 100% of these complaints before the oculus quest.

The external cameras turn on in the quest when I need them because I’ve gone out of bounds

The guardian helps me stay inbounds in my small space

The latency and amazing head tracking have removed all motion sickness

But it’s still just a beat saber machine. There haven’t been any major titles released in months, and it’s unclear if there will be.

We need Nintendo-style first party titles and some killer apps.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#129

Post by CrackerNews »

moron4hire wrote: post #70
drdaeman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that immediately comes to mind is that AR doesn't have that in-VR movement problem, that's notoriously hard to solve. And it doesn't require those weird-looking and weird-feeling controllers to interact with the world. So... maybe VR is not yet there, because the hardware does not allow for the full immersion that we unconsciously expect/want from a virtual reality?

It's not hard to solve. We've known the solution for years now. Don't do it. You can either keep your experience confined to the user's play boundary. You can teleport people to new locations. You can let people walk to the edge of their boundary and use a gesture of some kind (e.g. flicking one of their thumbsticks on their controller) to turn them around to do "redirected walking". You can provide a "strong stomach…

While those techniques are tricks that diminish sickness, they result in an experience that doesn't live up to a traditional gaming experience, but now VR and immersive.

For example, Doom VFR only has teleportation movement and it results in an experience that doesn't feel very Doomlike. Instead of blitzing around like a rabbit with a gun, now Doomguy is a magical genie with a gun.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#130

Post by CrackerNews »

Google must have faced the same problems that Oculus faced when it came to user retention. Carmack reported that people tried Gear VR once or twice before never touching it again.

Meanwhile, Quest managed to have user retention solely from how seamless it is to strap on a device and get going in VR. This is opposed to the inconvenience from taking out the phone from the case and putting it inside a device.

A seamless, cordless experience like the Quest is probably the future of VR even if it has limitations now and is still too relatively expensive for the masses. The Cardboard/Daydream/Gear VR line of VR is seen as a dead end now. Daydream is dead, and Gear VR might as well be dead.

Google must have looked at what it has on the horizon for VR and decided that it now can't compete with the likes of Oculus and HTC.

Post reply on HN