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

Virtual Reality is going to change the world

notch.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#171

Post by mercer »

pjc50 wrote: post #146
interpol_p wrote: post #35

From Notch: > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away? Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really se…

I think you're entirely right. As other people have said, we're forgetting the previous VR boom, and also the various times Hollywood has tried to make 3D films stick. 3D TVs are currently flagging in sales. In my cupboard of "tech that was once must-have", I have a Kinect, a Wii Fit, a dancemat, and an NVIDIA 3D shutter-glasses set. I suspect VR will end up there too.

I'd say the big issue with 3D films is that the '3D' is simply not good nor ubiquitous enough to justify buying and then wearing a geeky headset, or an expensive 3D TV. Not to mention the fact that there's a huge difference between full 3D in a rendered environment and semi-3D on a flat screen. And while I know very little about the previous VR boom, I suspect there were some significant issues that only recently have been solved (FPS, nausea, device size and price?).

In the same way that it took phone functionality as a trojan horse to mass tablet adoption, gaming might finally make 3D development gain critical mass with consumers.

To be fair, I haven't ever tried one so I can't comment on the experience itself. But from what I've heard, the developments in VR have scaled significant hurdles that make it something exciting and viable.

I think history has shown that sometimes seemingly-small developments in 'input' or 'output' can have a huge effect: fingers for touch screens (one of the biggest reasons for the iPhone's success, I think), a mouse and a GUI for computers (initially gathering dust in a research lab, if my history is correct), and arguably even something like retina displays.

Very often we underestimate the value of these developments, especially us geeks who are right on top of things and follow the small increments: "iPhone? I had a PDA x years ago (stylus though, but that's a minor detail)," or "tablet? it's just a bigger touch phone!"

(apologies for mostly using Apple as an example. I'm sure there are many others, but these just spring to mind.)

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#172

Post by runako »

Argorak wrote: post #161
yaeger wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he doesn't. He oversimplifies things. You know what the money during the kickstarter campaign was for? The first DevKit! They raised money for the dev kit and guess what? The people you chipped in got their dev kits. As far as I can see, people got exactly out of the kickstarter campaign what they wanted. They helped to start the business of Oculus and in return even got the DevKit to experience the first results…

You are oversimplifying things as well. On the "cash on the table" side of things you are right: people put cash on the table and got the goods. On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks. A successful funding drive plays on emotions, on promises and a glimpse of the future. A lot of the people that got a dev kit were closely monitoring what Oculus was doing and were plea…

>> Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks

And then those same backers complain loudly when those geeks succeed at business. Oculus just sold, before launching a product, for a quarter of the value of Electronic Arts (revenue: $3.7B). Perhaps Oculus (the business) was too successful for its backers, but there's not a lot of teams that would have turned down a deal like this.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#173

Post by wildpeaks »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #126
bloaf wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people predict that the instant we have complete VR, all human progress will cease. We will have no reason to seek new experiences in the real world because we can simulate any experience we want in the virtual world.

That's bunk. Most people don't care about fake experiences.

Only because they're not good enough at the moment: once it's indistinguishable from reality, they'll choose the path of lesser resistance that gives them the most control.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#174

Post by a3voices »

rpdillon wrote: post #106
ekianjo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. Then I'll hope I'm wrong, but come up with clear reasons why this will be mainstream and mass market.

Simple: it provides a hyper-compelling experience that is completely unavailable through any other means, and does so for merely the price of a peripheral. Doubters will visit a friend's house and use it and be instantly sold. VR is a Big Deal.

But you can't do other things at the same time, like look at your phone or the world around you. The value is limited.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#175

Post by yaeger »

Argorak wrote: post #161
yaeger wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he doesn't. He oversimplifies things. You know what the money during the kickstarter campaign was for? The first DevKit! They raised money for the dev kit and guess what? The people you chipped in got their dev kits. As far as I can see, people got exactly out of the kickstarter campaign what they wanted. They helped to start the business of Oculus and in return even got the DevKit to experience the first results…

You are oversimplifying things as well. On the "cash on the table" side of things you are right: people put cash on the table and got the goods. On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks. A successful funding drive plays on emotions, on promises and a glimpse of the future. A lot of the people that got a dev kit were closely monitoring what Oculus was doing and were plea…

>On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks.

And because of that it should be a rule that no other investors or partnerships should be possible once you go to kickstarter?

What about the past two rounds of investments Oculus went through? Did all backers threw fits like this? How many other entities have given money to Oculus and have a say in how things should be run at the office?

They never threw fits cause they a) didn't know who invested and was now calling the shots or b) didn't care enough to find out.

Only thing different is that is is well publicized that fb and oculus are now in business together. Had they done this quietly, nobody would have freaked out like this. Is it really too much to ask to put the freaking out on hold until there is actual evidence that things are being run into the ground? fb does not have a track record of acquiring and then fucking up the acquired tech. Examples are still instagram and whatsapp. They are also part of an open hardware initiative and they make contributions to open source. As far as a software company goes, they do things right.

So long as they keep their promise to let oculus work independently nothing changes other than oculus now has one big money source instead of many many smaller ones that all want a say how to do things. Unless the last two rounds of investments were all angel investors and not venture capitalists, I'd say a single silent money giver is better than many small noisy ones.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#176

Post by a3voices »

meowface wrote: post #41
mjfl wrote: post #8

This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe all the hype about VR. You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. If I want to have a conversation with a friend, I just want to see his/her face, I don't need the whole room simulated for me. Oculus will be a flash in the pan, and it's purchase by Facebook is just another example of the com…

I agree regarding the every day activities thing: FaceTime and Skype are sufficient and will probably remain dominant (maybe in different forms) for decades. But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.

But you can't look at your phone, play with your pet, etc. while using VR. It actually removes value to have both your eyes occupied.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#177

Post by Argorak »

yaeger wrote: post #175
Argorak wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are oversimplifying things as well. On the "cash on the table" side of things you are right: people put cash on the table and got the goods. On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks. A successful funding drive plays on emotions, on promises and a glimpse of the future. A lot of the people that got a dev kit were closely monitoring what Oculus was doing and were plea…

>On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks. And because of that it should be a rule that no other investors or partnerships should be possible once you go to kickstarter? What about the past two rounds of investments Oculus went through? Did all backers threw fits like this? How many other entities have given money to Oculus and have a say in how things should be run at…

> And because of that it should be a rule that no other investors or partnerships should be possible once you go to kickstarter?

I have neither implied nor called for that.

The only thing I explained is that the reactions are perfectly understandable and should be taken seriously - Oculus played the Kickstarter game as much as the backers.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#178

Post by JPKab »

skore wrote: post #34
smacktoward wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition He really puts his finger on one of the reasons why this deal feels so weird here, I think. Nobody who contributed to the Oculus Kickstarter did so because they were hoping Oculus would get flipped to a mega-corp. They didn't do so because they wanted the Oculus team to have a big, splashy VC-style exit. They…

> They did so because they wanted the Oculus product . Let's not forget that a huge part of the pitch was to be part of a developer community that sets out into an as of yet unknown realm. I don't think people are worried about what Facebook might do to Oculus, the product. They have a hard time seeing Facebook the social engine and Oculus, the developer community coexisting peacefully. In a way, they're already maki…

I see this as Oculus being a pawn in the Google/Facebook war for the future of owning all of us. Google is doing Glass(which admittedly is nothing like Oculus) and here comes FB buying Oculus.

I'd like to know why Oculus sold to Facebook. That's bullshit. If there's ever been a company that didn't need to sell because its so obvious they are going to be huge, its Oculus.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#179

Post by Argorak »

runako wrote: post #172
Argorak wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are oversimplifying things as well. On the "cash on the table" side of things you are right: people put cash on the table and got the goods. On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks. A successful funding drive plays on emotions, on promises and a glimpse of the future. A lot of the people that got a dev kit were closely monitoring what Oculus was doing and were plea…

>> Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks And then those same backers complain loudly when those geeks succeed at business. Oculus just sold, before launching a product, for a quarter of the value of Electronic Arts (revenue: $3.7B). Perhaps Oculus (the business) was too successful for its backers, but there's not a lot of teams that would have turned down a deal like this.

Selling is success for the businessman, not necessarily for the customer.

There is no point in telling people that they should be happy about that.

Re: Virtual Reality is going to change the world

#180

Post by jrochkind1 »

thedudemabry wrote: post #127
jrochkind1 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skirts the laws around crowd-sourced investing? If it had been 'investing', the funders would have gotten a piece of facebook's two billion acquisition bucks, right? That's what investing means, right? As you mention, "without having to give up any equity." I think kickstarter funders on technology projects are frequently suckers, but it's not got a lot to do with 'skirting the laws around crowdsourced investing'.

Agreed. This is a "gamble to win a product that you want" game, not a "gamble to win a stake in a company that you like" game. The very product-based focus of the transaction is intended to discourage thinking of it as an investment. I think Notch was perfectly reasonable in his analysis. He got the product that he wanted, but was disappointed that their tactics after fulfillment were to cash out and align their dire…

Well, I think both yes and no.

I think many people _do_ give to kickstarter campaigns when it's a group of people they _feel like helping_. This is a bigger part of non-technology project kickstarter transactions, but I think it's probably a part of technology projects too, as can perhaps be seen in the way they are pitched on their project pages, or how funders respond to them -- obviously Notch didn't give $10k just as a 'pre-order'.

It's not _just_ "I want to pre-order this not yet existing tech thing which hopefully will exist", it's also "I want to help these guys succeed, I understand they're scrappy nobody's who might not be able to do it without me, I'm willing to take on some risk and perhaps pay a premium in part because I want to help them, and I know they're taking on risk themselves." It's not about equity, in fact it's more... charitable? Solidaritous? Helpful?... than equity.

I mean, consider, if Facebook itself started a kickstarter project to fund some new device or platform -- do you think people would fund it on facebook?

I think it's both predictable and understandable people feel 'sold out' when they thought they were funding some scrappy strivers who were putting themselves on the line for the project too, only to have those scrappy strivers make a huge amount of cash by selling out to major corporation -- before the product you thought you were helping to make possible was even finished.

Post reply on HN