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

Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 285 posts

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#121

Post by baby »

degenerate wrote: post #84
bykhun wrote: post #80

Really, what a bad time to publish such article. Oculus Quest hit records with its' sales for Christmas, and out of stock for two months ahead.

Also, Valve will release Half-Life: Alyx [1] in March 2020. It's the first game in the much-loved HL series released since Portal 2 in 2011. I don't own a VR headset and I don't intend to any time soon - it's too expensive and nothing looks enjoyable enough to justify the cost. But once enough big-name games like Alyx get released, gamers previously on the fence (like me) will start to purchase VR headsets, and VR wi…

The Oculus quest is 400$, that's a pretty fair price imo (and it is amazing).

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#122

Post by codingmess »

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

That'S not an issue with the Occulus Quest anymore. You need a little space, but setup is very easy and requires no extra arrangements.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#123

Post by baby »

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

that's not true, you can play VR standing in one place.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#124

Post by l33tman »

gmueckl wrote: post #29
lasagnaphil wrote: post #15

What I think virtual reality would be immediately useful right now: for anyone working on 3D modeling/animating/CAD. It is very finicky to view and manipulate 3d data on a flat 2d monitor, VR headsets and manipulation devices should be a godsend to those professions. (Also, they have a lot more money to throw than ordinary consumers, they would be willing to pay thousands on a superior workflow.) If VR software devel…

I currently hack together a mini mesh modelling tool in VR for very specific reasons. I find that creating a UI for something moderately complex isn't all that easy. The common idiom is to treat your controllers as laser pointers, but precision is limited. So you need big UI elements to have easy to hit targets. With the number of simultaneous UI elements thus limited, you need to create hierarchies and menus fast, m…

I'm going to get the Valve Index with the new knuckles controllers, and do some UI experiments with these. It's pretty cool if you can use the individual finger movements to extend hand gestures. I'm also sure it will take years until the UI converges to something optimal..

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#125

Post by rusk »

martin_a wrote: post #105
reportgunner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you simply go to all the sites that are better than this one ?

Unsubstantional comment. Enjoy my downvote. (See, there could actually be something wrong/worth of critics with this downvote system but discussions about that are always downvoted.) edit: This comment will also most likely be seen as unsubstantial as most of the HN user base is not capable of understanding and reacting to satiric comments.

> the HN user base is not capable of understanding and reacting to satiric comments.

"the HN user base" comprises people from many different walks of life and many different cultural backgrounds, not all of which jive with your idea of "fun".

Add to that our medium is static text, a format which is widely known to cause misunderstanding. Back when I was young in the 90s we had a term for respecting this kind of thing, it was called "netiquette".

Perhaps, rather than demanding that everybody else jump on board your boat, you should just familiarise yourself with the house rules (there aren't many) and simply abide by them!

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#127

Post by baby »

untog wrote: post #117
chrischen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will do things that they aren't used to if the benefits outweigh the costs. And of the list of things preventing people from doing VR right now, I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top (things like cost, PC, space, etc are).

> I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top For me personally, a side effect of that is the reason I'm not excited about VR: it's anti-social. I'm shutting myself off from anyone else in my apartment in a way a normal video game doesn't do. It makes me way, way less excited about the potential of VR.

Interestingly, I've had the most impressive social experience in VR. I got the Oculus Go when it came out and bought Catan (the board game, but in VR). I then launched a game online, and ended up playing for an hour with a finish kid and a canadian dude. We talked like we were all together, and at the end I couldn't just leave without saying goodbye (usually I just quit a game, but here I felt some social pressure to do the right thing). We even shook hand.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#128

Post by losvedir »

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

I think you have it exactly backwards. VR might not catch on as readily among affluent folks who can afford to have all these great experiences in real life, but will be a great escape for others (yes, I'm aware some will see that as dystopian, but to me it's just a better TV).

The Oculus Quest isn't like 5.1 sound at all. I kickstarted the original Oculus and would agree with your characterization there, but the Quest is entirely different. It's self contained, not needing to be tethered to a computer, and the boundary configuration is a snap. You do it from within the VR, observing your own room with its cameras, and just draw the boundary walls. Many games you can even do seated but "room scale" ones only need about 6ft x 6ft, which most people even in tiny apartments can put together.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#129

Post by scottlocklin »

gwd wrote: post #118
scottlocklin wrote: post #95

"Why we've never fallen in love with 3-d glasses" -fixed the title. Science fiction predictions of the future are almost universally comically bad. People should know this by now; we completely lack positronic brains, warp drives, moon bases and tricorders. VR is a science fiction prediction of the future, just like positronic brains. The fact that people won't pay lots of money for a cheesy 3-d glasses experience as…

But we do have personal communicators, which are way better than sci fi ever depicted.

I never saw captain Kirk recharging his, nor fiddling with it when he was bored. Space1999 commlocks were also way better than an ipotato. http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umcomlock.html

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#130

Post by akhilcacharya »

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

I live in a tiny Cambridge apartment and I can set up a small play space just fine without external equipment (inside out tracking through Windows MR). Though I do agree, the activation energy of putting on a bulky headset does prevent me from getting into a game at the drop of a hat.
Post reply on HN