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

231–240 of 285 posts

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

#231

Post by criddell »

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.

The current VR devices aren't the first commercially available ones. My first VR experience was in the late 80's and I think it was driven by an Amiga. Thirty years has passed since then and I think that maybe the market is what it's going to be.

AR has a ton of potential though (e.g. windshield HUDs).

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

#232

Post by rpdillon »

xyzzyz wrote: post #216
rafaelvasco wrote: post #134

The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

Yeah, it's weird how everyone is talking like it's a multi-thousand dollar investment. Even TFA, it closes with:

> "Mass adoption remains impeded by the hardware required to run it, in my opinion. Take videogames - you need a very powerful PC, a good amount of space, sensors set up around it, and of course the VR helmet itself.

> "The cost runs to thousands and for most it is completely impractical not to mention too expensive.

I appreciate the space concern (I live with others in a condo), but the cost is 1/5th or 1/10th of what they suggest, and they are completely ignoring inside-out tracking with obviates the need for a dedicated room with a sensor setup.

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

#233

Post by guu »

deskamess wrote: post #227
codingmess wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you project what you see on the headset only Oculus Quest to another screen? For example, if I am playing Beat Saber, can I project my view to TV so that family can watch? Or to a Chromecast/Alex/similar tech?

Yes, it works with chromecast.

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

#234

Post by warp »

deskamess wrote: post #227
codingmess wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you project what you see on the headset only Oculus Quest to another screen? For example, if I am playing Beat Saber, can I project my view to TV so that family can watch? Or to a Chromecast/Alex/similar tech?

Yes, you can cast to the phone or to a chromecast (which still needs the phone).

However, the stream is delayed quite a bit so we do this with the TV muted -- otherwise the experience in VR is annoying (especially with music games like Beat Saber).

You could perhaps work around that by using some good isolating head phones, but then it would be impossible to have a conversation between the folks on the couch and the person in VR. (in which case, why are you streaming to the TV then?).

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

#235

Post by reddog »

xyzzyz wrote: post #216
rafaelvasco wrote: post #134

The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

I bought an Oculus Go for $100 during a black friday sale last year just to see what this VR thing is all about. I think you can get one today for around $130.

We've definitely gotten $100 worth of fun out of the thing.

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

#236

Post by rafaelvasco »

xyzzyz wrote: post #216
rafaelvasco wrote: post #134

The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

Weirdly, in my local currency, (R$), Occulus Quest is 4000$ or more. Look at that conversion rate lol.

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

#237

Post by taloft »

overcast wrote: post #181

VR is only going to become an obsession when we're jacked into it like the Matrix or The Beam. Otherwise it's just you wearing a screen on your face.

Saying it’s just a screen on your face is an oversimplification. While that may be a somewhat accurate physical description, it doesn’t capture the actual experience, anymore than saying a smart phone is just a phone in your pocket.

I’ve had vr sets since the oculus dk2, and admit that I probably haven’t used it in over a year, because it’s a bit cumbersome, locks you into a single experience, removes you from your environment, and the relatively lower quality of applications that are available.

There are some really great immersive applications though such as subnautica, google earth, and elite dangerous.

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

#238

Post by rocky1138 »

untog wrote: post #222
baby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a very different social experience, though. You're still blocking yourself off from other people in the room with you.

Agreed. I pinged Oculus on Twitter a few months ago saying that if they wanted to win Christmas they should make a "his and hers" headset pack.

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

#239

Post by rpdillon »

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…

I spend about 10 hours a week in VR, and my experience is that I mostly play quick games in it: a round of Beat Saber, a level of Pistol Whip, a couple of tracks in Synth Rider, a level of Super Hot. 5-10 minutes in most cases. I do have days where I'll do a more intense workout in Beat Saber or Thrill of the Fight and that can be 45 minutes, but that's not the most common case for me.

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

#240

Post by blaser-waffle »

mdorazio wrote: post #81

Really surprised that neither the article nor the comments here mention the #1 barrier to entry. Your average person doesn’t want to strap a big, heavy, sweaty contraption on their face that blocks their vision entirely. Analysts and enthusiasts seem to miss this point constantly.

I loved playing with my (former) roommate's Oculus but, even with wiping it down, wearing the headset made me break out like a mofo.
Post reply on HN