131–137 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frank Zappa wrote a song about the Magic Leap investors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_WgCGOWae4 https://www.google.com/search?q=cocaine+decisions+lyrics&oq=...
I wonder if he's singing about what he named his kids. Man the 70s were special.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're trying to do analysis and not propaganda, you have to look at both routes and see what the differentiators are. Well, the thing I see immediately is that you're not really doing an accurate analysis. Stereoscopic 3D from a fixed point of view is indeed an old concept, and definitely not enough. But we've moved well beyond that already. I think the actual value proposition is immersive stereoscopic 3D + go…
I again don't think you're grappling with my point. There are certainly differences between each of the 5+ waves of excitement over stereoscopic 3D. Each time people argued that really, those differences made the difference. And each time they were wrong, because they personally found the idea exciting. Instead of addressing the pattern seriously, to me it seems like you are repeating it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1wStc0m86M
That's a VR specific experience. You're not just clicking a mouse button and watching a soldier die, you're sticking your sword in their eye socket with your own arm. Even though that game is lacking polish still, the experience of doing that is unsettling in ways that no PC game is. Because it's really you doing that, without any abstraction over it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I again don't think you're grappling with my point. There are certainly differences between each of the 5+ waves of excitement over stereoscopic 3D. Each time people argued that really, those differences made the difference. And each time they were wrong, because they personally found the idea exciting. Instead of addressing the pattern seriously, to me it seems like you are repeating it.
But it's not about just stereoscopic 3D, I'm saying. That's old. Immersion is what is new. Eg, take this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1wStc0m86M That's a VR specific experience. You're not just clicking a mouse button and watching a soldier die, you're sticking your sword in their eye socket with your own arm. Even though that game is lacking polish still, the experience of doing that is unsettling in ways that…
But that was true about previous generations. 3D TV was going to bring the experience right into the home! It was a game-changer! Not just movies! Not just TV shows! But live events like sports, where 3D perception would make a big difference!
And still, it sank like a stone.
There have been VR-specific experiences since the 1990s. I have tried many of them. They are neat! But take Superhot and Beat Saber, two "only in VR examples". I rented a Quest and they were indeed cool. But Superhot sold more non-VR copies, so obviously the experience works well enough without VR. The kids really loved Beat Saber, but they played it by sitting on the couch, staring straight ahead, and twitching their wrists. And when they got tired of having a sweaty, heavy thing on their head, they went back to their Switches and the PS4. When I sent the Quest back, they never even noticed. Whereas if I'd gotten rid of the PS4, it would have been armageddon around here.
The truth is that existing games are already very immersive. Getting the kids out of Minecraft or Roblox or Horizon takes a crowbar. if you want do demonstrate that this new technology is truly more immersive, you'll have to show not just that you think it's cool, but that a mass audience actively prefers it and won't go back.
That has certainly happened with entertainment technologies in the past. Look at color film and later color TV: people were willing to pay up, and the new tech almost entirely drove out the old in short order. Compare that with 3D movies and 3D TV: people care at best a little.
So far, everything I see suggests that facehugger VR is the latter category. If you have data otherwise, I look forward to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not about just stereoscopic 3D, I'm saying. That's old. Immersion is what is new. Eg, take this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1wStc0m86M That's a VR specific experience. You're not just clicking a mouse button and watching a soldier die, you're sticking your sword in their eye socket with your own arm. Even though that game is lacking polish still, the experience of doing that is unsettling in ways that…
I agreed previously there are differences. And clearly these are differences you find intellectually exciting. But that was true about previous generations. 3D TV was going to bring the experience right into the home! It was a game-changer! Not just movies! Not just TV shows! But live events like sports, where 3D perception would make a big difference! And still, it sank like a stone. There have been VR-specific expe…
That's completely missing the point of it. If you're not swinging your arms around like a maniac and aren't lying in a puddle of sweat after a few songs, you're not really doing it right. Also, Beat Saber penalizes you for such minimal movement.
> The truth is that existing games are already very immersive. Getting the kids out of Minecraft or Roblox or Horizon takes a crowbar. if you want do demonstrate that this new technology is truly more immersive, you'll have to show not just that you think it's cool, but that a mass audience actively prefers it and won't go back.
Immersion to me is not addiction, it's immersion. Feeling like you're inside the game, for however long that happens to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one wants to wear a headset if it makes them look stupid. If AR glasses are a dead end then mass adoption of AR outside of gaming/enterprise is likely DOA.
Last time I went skiing I noticed ski goggles kind of look cool, and are the perfect form factor for pass through ar. I think that’ll be the form it finally takes when Apple makes it cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agreed previously there are differences. And clearly these are differences you find intellectually exciting. But that was true about previous generations. 3D TV was going to bring the experience right into the home! It was a game-changer! Not just movies! Not just TV shows! But live events like sports, where 3D perception would make a big difference! And still, it sank like a stone. There have been VR-specific expe…
> The kids really loved Beat Saber, but they played it by sitting on the couch, staring straight ahead, and twitching their wrists. That's completely missing the point of it. If you're not swinging your arms around like a maniac and aren't lying in a puddle of sweat after a few songs, you're not really doing it right. Also, Beat Saber penalizes you for such minimal movement. > The truth is that existing games are alr…
Immersion is not addiction, sure. But I feel plenty immersed when playing Minecraft. I lose track of the outside world. Or watch the way people move physically when they play an action video game on a screen; if they're into it they will move their heads and bodies to dodge. They'll physically jump back at a surprise or a scare. Immersion happens just fine on 2D screens.
Does Facehugger VR feel immersive? Definitely. Does it it feel more immersive at first? It did for me, although that feeling wore off over time. Does that matter enough to get people to stop using flat screens and game only in VR? Not for me or my family, and that appears to be the general reaction.
I'm going to say one last time that you do not appear to be getting with or grappling with my main points. If all you have is more argumentative nitpicking, this will probably be my last reply, as it looks to me like you're in the grip of the exact problem I'm describing.
Thanks for the article! It's very interesting to see what Magic Leap is up to. Any rumblings about how Microsoft is progressing on Hololens 3? Also, a side note—I develop [Unity libraries for displaying web browsers in 3D][1], including a package for Hololens because I received many customer requests for it. In contrast, I've received relatively few requests to support Magic Leap, which leads me think that the adopti…
Thanks, The rumor mill is that Microsoft has slowed down development of HL3 development with many people leaving. Most famously, Bernard Kress, and optical architect of Hololens 1 and 2 has left for Google. There were very few Magic Leap Ones ever sold. The number I hear is between 5,000 and 10,000 units sold for money with about as many units given away. Hololens 2 seems to be shipping about 70K to 100K units per ye…
Thanks as always for your coverage on this stuff.