Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by grawprog » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #144

grawprog wrote: post #139

About the only VR game that's ever seemed appealing to me is that table top simulator game. https://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/Tabletop_Simulator... Personally, I'd love to get a group of people together and play a DND campaign or something with it, but other than that, I don't have any interest in VR games. If anything, these days, I prefer quicker, less immersive games I can pick up and play and put down aga…

Personally, I find Elite: Dangerous to be the best, most immersive VR game I've played. It's a 6DOF space sim set in a 1:1 scale version of the Milky Way that puts you in the pilot's seat, with a few dozen ships to choose from. The insides of the cockpit (or bridge on the larger ships) are fully modeled. Paired with a decent HOTAS or dual-stick setup, it's about as close as you're going to get to flying a futuristic…

I have to admit, a vr space sim could be pretty awesome. I've played a lot of oolite and I used to play another space Sim pretty heavily the name which escapes me right now.

>surface exploration and you can have friends join you on your ship as either a gunner or ship-launched fighter pilot.

This seems like it would be pretty fun. I find space Sims get boring though, they tend to get really repetitive. How does elite dangerous do with mission and system variety? I find in the end, with most games like that, different systems tend to boil down to different numbers on the trade screen, maybe a random event or two and a lot of flying around empty space to get to a planet or stations, load up on some trade goods or get a mission, head to the next system, repeat. Maybe mine an asteroid or two for minerals in between.

These things would definitely be prettier and more immersive in VR, but are they any more fun?

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

#162

Post by RookyNumbas » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

utf985 wrote: post #116

ekianjo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We've never fallen in love"? Really? Yes, really, You are the exception. By now there is quite a few people who have tried VR in some place or another and the market has clearly shown sales are not skyrocketing at all. It's a very slow growth, we are talking about a few millions headsets per year, which is just pocket money market wise compared to smartphones or even PCs at large. Also, most of the software is utt…

Obviously, we're still at very early stages with this tech. It's silly to compare it with smartphones and PCs, since it's a very different class of product. There are some barriers for entry but, as I said they will eventually get ironed out. The price of a full set with a fidelity grade matching the current high end sets shouldn't exceed the price of a games console in a few years. There has definitely been a huge i…

Your first paragraph has been the goto defense for VR for a decade now. I used it myself five years ago. But it's gotten old now. Tech is supposed to solve these problems faster than this.

The Valve index sold out because it is the only way to play one of the most anticipated games of all time.

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

#163

Post by scotty79 » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

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.

Not really. I can't just speak to communicator expecting it to understand me and only me in a fraction of a second and connect me to the right person. At least not without "ok google" or "alexa" or "hey siri".

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

#164

Post by jjtheblunt » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

I saw the title, and thought "because real reality is more engaging".

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

#165

Post by kalado » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #113

Ajedi32 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the evidence they cite for VR declining seems to be entirely within the space of 3DoF VR, like Google's Daydream and VR video: > Many big name adopters have abandoned their VR projects. Google recently halted sales of Daydream, its VR headset, admitting that "there just hasn't been the broad consumer or developer adoption we had hoped". > Meanwhile, the BBC has announced it is ending the funding for its VR hub,…

> Yeah, the evidence they cite for VR declining seems to be entirely within the space of 3DoF VR, like Google's Daydream and VR video: If VR were such a hot market surely you would not see the Google Daydream news and Samsung killing off GearVR. You have to take in account all news, positive and negative, to get an actual view of how the market is doing. And also the investment. And investment in VR has been in the d…

Holding your phone in front of your eyes with some glass inbetween is a bit of a difference to a real VR Headset.

And don't ignore how active the porn industry is in the VR space.

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

#166

Post by berdon » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

I have the Quest and an empty basement set up for it. The games are all still too indie feeling but with the focus dialed in the experience is truly remarkable. Oculus is pushing in the right places too - standalone device with PC support, hands free capability (for older/elderly), and hopefully guardian-less mode (outside play).

I've had a number of friends and family members of different ages try it. The older ones struggled with the controls but once they got into Beat Saber they enjoyed it. With better content and games I see it finally taking off. I dream of the day we have parking lots/warehouses where people play MMOs on VR and stay fit.

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

#167

Post by oblio » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

kalado wrote: post #160

oblio wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Altair 8080 is considered the first PC and it was released in 1974. The IBM PC was released in 1981 and PCs became widespread only in the 1990's, when they started adding multimedia features. So about 20 years for mass adoption. The first touchscreen phone was introduced in 1994, the IBM Simon. Yet the first true modern smartphone to get mass adoption was the iPhone, 2007. And truly massive adoption worldwide hap…

With the exception that current VR devices are actually pretty good and much better than the first PC/Touchscreen phone. It will probably be closer to 5 years than 10 year for the first mass adopted rig.

Well, we're talking about mass market adoption. If they make 1% of people feel sick, that's tens if not hundreds of millions of people who will be actively campaigning against your product. This is definitely into early adopter territory.

Then you need super high graphical fidelity (resolution, refresh rate, field of view, etc.) and super portable equipment.

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

#168

Post by berdon » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #157

I put a PS4 VR set on my head at my relatives over the holidays and I could not have been more disappointed. They had just been gifted it for Christmas and were trying out all of the demos. I put it on and while I could rotate my head in any direction like I was living inside some google maps experiment almost... The picture was extremely blurry and the entire experience gave me a headache... after probably only 10 m…

Did you try fixing the focus?

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

#169

Post by berdon » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

codingmess wrote: post #122

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.

+1. Oculus Quest setup takes roughly 15-30s in any room - regardless of having played there before or not.

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

#170

Post by skizm » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

jackbrookes wrote: post #111

skizm wrote: post #61

VR won’t ever be more than niche because there is no way to fake tactile feedback or motion. Games need to design around this. Beat Sanger is the best selling VR game because your character doesn’t move and there is nothing to touch. God games, like black and white or the sims, and 4x games might work well too. Also if graphics get better people can set up virtual desk spaces and get rid of screens. Ultimately though…

Every video game ever made has this problem suffers from a lack of haptic feedback and gaming is still one of the biggest activities in the world.

VR is the uncanny valley of immersion. Visually everything works so well that you are constantly jarred back to reality every time you try and interact with something. Traditional games work well because they require minimal movement to get what you’re thinking to happen on screen. So once you’re focused, there is not much that can happen to bring you out of it.