171–180 of 238 posts
Did they need to change my mouse cursor to show me their product? That really confused me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been literally playing Cricket VR for 4 hours everyday since X-Mas. For someone who played college-level cricket, this is a dream come true for me and the sensation of hitting the ball in the middle of the bat is mind blowing. But, here's the kicker. In real world, If I had play 120 pitches (baseball equivalent), I'd have to wait for 4 hours. In VR it could be done in 30 minutes. I've already lost 7 pounds and f…
Wish I could do that. VR is still a huge pain for people with very strong glasses prescriptions.
Every headset I've tried fits over my glasses. I've had several different frames over time as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VR is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed concept. To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else. The average, casual user isn't going to do that on a regular basis. It's not something you can do with kids around if you need to keep an eye on them, unlike a book or a TV show or even a game on your phone or laptop. Fundamentally, immersion is a selling point to a very specific audienc…
100% agree. VR immersion is fundamentally broken anyway due to the locomotion problem. You can walk freely in your play area but it's always too small compared to typical game world size. So you end up being able to look around, duck, and dodge, but if you want to take a step forward, you need to remember to twiddle a joystick instead. It's a lot of cognitive load and discomfort for very little benefit. Flat games fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VR is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed concept. To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else. The average, casual user isn't going to do that on a regular basis. It's not something you can do with kids around if you need to keep an eye on them, unlike a book or a TV show or even a game on your phone or laptop. Fundamentally, immersion is a selling point to a very specific audienc…
> The average, casual user isn’t going to do that on a regular basis. So? Plenty of successful products aren’t for the average, casual user. HOTAS controllers aren’t for instance. So what? Not everything is universal adoption or nothing. Also, predictions about the “average, casual user” will want tend to be…unreliable. Trends driven by the kind of non-average, non-casual users that tend to be early adopters can shif…
This doesn't mean VR won't be successful for gaming or highly technical niche things just that getting over the chasm of early adopters/niche to mainstream isn't likely to happen. There are going to be a ton of anecdotes here on HN about how people like it but people here on HN are in the early adopter/gaming niches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VR is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed concept. To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else. The average, casual user isn't going to do that on a regular basis. It's not something you can do with kids around if you need to keep an eye on them, unlike a book or a TV show or even a game on your phone or laptop. Fundamentally, immersion is a selling point to a very specific audienc…
100% agree. VR immersion is fundamentally broken anyway due to the locomotion problem. You can walk freely in your play area but it's always too small compared to typical game world size. So you end up being able to look around, duck, and dodge, but if you want to take a step forward, you need to remember to twiddle a joystick instead. It's a lot of cognitive load and discomfort for very little benefit. Flat games fe…
It's honestly not an issue and the early Valve thinking of that only room scale locomotion is acceptable is silly for anyone who's spent more than an hour in VR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been literally playing Cricket VR for 4 hours everyday since X-Mas. For someone who played college-level cricket, this is a dream come true for me and the sensation of hitting the ball in the middle of the bat is mind blowing. But, here's the kicker. In real world, If I had play 120 pitches (baseball equivalent), I'd have to wait for 4 hours. In VR it could be done in 30 minutes. I've already lost 7 pounds and f…
Wish I could do that. VR is still a huge pain for people with very strong glasses prescriptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll keep saying this until it happens...the biggest AR use case, for me, is replacing the television. The fact that we all have giant boxes as the centerpiece of our main rooms is something unnatural that we take for granted. I'm not sure how far AR devices that allows for social viewing of television content are away, but I feel in my bones that it will happen and when it does children of that generation will be co…
Yeah I’m not putting VR googles on my children. That in and of itself makes it a non-starter. What you describe sounds like a single person experience which is fine but watching a show or a movie can also be a social experience and very often is exactly this. Seeing other people’s reactions and sharing space is a huge part of it. You can’t do that in VR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll keep saying this until it happens...the biggest AR use case, for me, is replacing the television. The fact that we all have giant boxes as the centerpiece of our main rooms is something unnatural that we take for granted. I'm not sure how far AR devices that allows for social viewing of television content are away, but I feel in my bones that it will happen and when it does children of that generation will be co…
I can't imagine that at all. A TV is like a piece of furniture, or a decoration like a painting. As compelling as it is, you can choose to ignore it, make eye contact with and talk to someone else in the room wether the TV is on or not. It's casual. I imagine too what an outrageously high pixel count a VR set would have to have to render a virtual TV with the same resolution as a real one. And even aside from the abo…
Yup. It might take decades to get there, but I think we'll get there.
> And even aside from the above, I really can't see myself putting something on my face and dropping out of my environ for anything more than about 5 or 10 minutes. It's just weird.
I'm envisioning the equivalent of a pair of spectacles. People wear spectacles all day every day without _too_ much issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else. Sounds perfect for a flight.
Apart from the flailing limbs and suddenly-rotating head with apparatus. Eliminating those, are we back to just watching a movie? That said, I'd much rather watch a movie on a plane in a VR headset than off of a seat back.
It looks like they have much better software than we had at launch, though.
The experience for phone-based headsets is really pretty good. The issue is that it’s a really hard sell for consumers at that price point for seemingly a piece of plastic, and the price point is necessary for the optics unless you have massive volume. The other issue is of course the bulky form factor.