https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/what-happened-to-the-virtual-reality-gaming-revolution
There's an interesting article on Ars Technica* about the current "VR Revolution", asking if it's lived up to the hype or not, and where it
is going from here.
Because VR was supposed to be the next big thing, with some suggesting
it would soon outsell televisions and completely revolutionize media consumption. But though this generation of VR - started in 2012 when
the first Occulus was released - has had better fortunes than the one
in the late 90s, it's still rather niche, especially on PCs (it's done
a bit better as a stand-alone product).
The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
that make them look askance at the modern tech.
I never bought into the excitement about VR. There's a part of me that
really wanted to - a fully immersive video game experience? Sign me
up! - but even when taking all the hype at face value it was a hard
sell. Admittedly, I haven't tried newer offerings - I definitely fall
into the "used it in the past and was disappointed - but my biggest
problem wasn't that the tech was uncomfortable or inconvenient: it was
that it didn't live up to its promise. It never felt immersive to me;
it was just a bigger screen. It didn't make me feel any more 'in the
game' than watching it on a big TV. Neat? Sure. Worth the price and
hassle? Definitely not.
And - of course - when Facebook became the primary pusher of the tech,
I lost all interest. There are alternatives, of course (PSVR, Valve
Index), but they are -sadly- also rans. A lot of my negativity over
the tech stems from Facebook's involvement; that killed my interest in
it more than anything else.
But I accept that while VR is never going to be a big part of my
gaming life, I'm hardly representative of the market. And -knowing
that a number of people here have invested in the technology - I
thought I'd ask them:
(finally getting around to the point of this post!)
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are weVR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the >headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
"must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.
FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).
As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.
I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.
--
Zag
No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
"must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.
FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).
As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.
I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.
There's an interesting article on Ars Technica* about the current "VR Revolution", asking if it's lived up to the hype or not, and where it
is going from here.
Because VR was supposed to be the next big thing, with some suggesting
it would soon outsell televisions and completely revolutionize media consumption. But though this generation of VR - started in 2012 when
the first Occulus was released - has had better fortunes than the one
in the late 90s, it's still rather niche, especially on PCs (it's done
a bit better as a stand-alone product).
The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
that make them look askance at the modern tech.
I never bought into the excitement about VR. There's a part of me that
really wanted to - a fully immersive video game experience? Sign me
up! - but even when taking all the hype at face value it was a hard
sell. Admittedly, I haven't tried newer offerings - I definitely fall
into the "used it in the past and was disappointed - but my biggest
problem wasn't that the tech was uncomfortable or inconvenient: it was
that it didn't live up to its promise. It never felt immersive to me;
it was just a bigger screen. It didn't make me feel any more 'in the
game' than watching it on a big TV. Neat? Sure. Worth the price and
hassle? Definitely not.
And - of course - when Facebook became the primary pusher of the tech,
I lost all interest. There are alternatives, of course (PSVR, Valve
Index), but they are -sadly- also rans. A lot of my negativity over
the tech stems from Facebook's involvement; that killed my interest in
it more than anything else.
But I accept that while VR is never going to be a big part of my
gaming life, I'm hardly representative of the market. And -knowing
that a number of people here have invested in the technology - I
thought I'd ask them:
(finally getting around to the point of this post!)
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?
On 08/10/2022 16:43, Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?
VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
"must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same
experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.
FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).
As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.
I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real
reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.
Yep that's pretty much my position. I wouldn't mind trying it just to
see what it's like but I'm not going to spend several hundred pounds
just for that.
The games made for it seem more like gimmicks, toys, or tech
demos for the most part, I'd agree.
Is it possible that there /isn't/ a killer app for VR, something that
only it can do, and so well that people just have to buy it? Because
right now it seems that - while it it is nifty tech - it is so
compromised in its experience that it isn't worth the effort, much
less the price.
What would convince people it's worth making the plunge, if they've
already looked at what's on offer and found it lacking?
read leaflet"WELCOME TO USENET!
The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
that make them look askance at the modern tech.
So, doesn't that raise the question: CAN there be a killer app for VR? >Something so awesome that people will have flock to it like moths to a
flame?
[Like Justisaur my first attempt to post this seems to have failed.
Sorry, if you're seeing this twice.]
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
that make them look askance at the modern tech.
I think that friction and the other things the article blames are just
meant to distract you from the elephant in the room: VR can never be
more than an expensive niche product. Imagine if instead of VR we were >talking a console or PC controller that only worked with first person >perspective games. How many people would pay $400 for that? But the >expectation is that people will pay $400 or more to play an even more >limitted selection of games.
(I should point out I'm saying this as someone who's never drank the >kool-aid. The closest thing to a cyberpunk novel that I've read is
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the only VR film I've seen is >"Tron". I've never tried any form VR, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't work >with my glasses and even if they did there's countless other things I'd
spend my money on first. I'd like to think this makes my view of VR
less biased, though I realise anyone who has drank the kool-aid would >disagree.)
On Sun, 09 Oct 2022 11:32:46 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Is it possible that there /isn't/ a killer app for VR, something that
only it can do, and so well that people just have to buy it? Because
right now it seems that - while it it is nifty tech - it is so
compromised in its experience that it isn't worth the effort, much
less the price.
What would convince people it's worth making the plunge, if they've
already looked at what's on offer and found it lacking?
WARNING: Spalls-like post length imminent. Run for your life.
If sims were less niche, they are the killer app for VR. But sims are not >mainstream gaming material. Stuff like training a batter with real
historical pitchers, or a virtual experience at a firearms range, or a
head tracking, interactive X-wing cockpit (in the XWVM engine over the >original X-Wing) are all happening right now. They just don't bring the
mass market. They could... but no big company wants a piece of it,
because it also means taking a piece of serious, high-budget risk.
VR is not a proven winner like CoD CXIV, and nobody who has the money
wants to put serious money into VR sims because they are *hard*. That >baseball swing sim costs a packet. So large companies opt for a graft-on >process to current 3D engines instead of a sim built from the ground up
for VR. There will be no killer app for VR if no company is willing to
take the risk of making a serious, committed, and risky effort at a
VR-only experience/game.
The promise is there, if unrealized. But just as you and I would probably
put money into a video card before a VR set, gaming companies will put
money into the next FIFA or CoD, with proven ROI, rather than risk it on
VR. Zuck is the only one who's attempted it, and to date it's a miserable >failure, due to lack of imagination on his part, IMHO.
(see also the continuing attempt to replace the keyboard with new
fangled interfaces - such as virtual displays - that look flashy and
/seem/ like they should be better, but ultimately are inferior
versions. We may one day get a better way to input data into a
computer but we haven't found it yet. Similarly, VR seems like it
should be a better way to output data... but it's not. Sometimes the
old tech is just superior for actual use)
So I don't think VR's big problem is the price; it's convincing them
that they'll still be using it regularly enough to make the purchase
worth it. The lack of a 'killer app' - something you can only do in VR
and do it so well as to make non-VR look obsolete - is a far more
significant problem.
I was just reading some of the release blurb for the Meta Quest Pro and
I found the interesting part is that games don't even get a mention (I'm
not even sure it's suitable for games due to being able to see reality
in your peripheral view) but instead it majors of real life work and the >metaverse.
Oh and at £1500 I think I'll give it a miss.
I was just reading some of the release blurb for the Meta Quest Pro and
I found the interesting part is that games don't even get a mention (I'm
not even sure it's suitable for games due to being able to see reality
in your peripheral view) but instead it majors of real life work and the metaverse.
Oh and at £1500 I think I'll give it a miss.
On 10/12/2022 4:29 AM, JAB wrote:
What kind of "real life work" requires VR?
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:42:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2022 4:29 AM, JAB wrote:
What kind of "real life work" requires VR?
If Facebook has its way, everything will be done in VR. The 'obvious'
is business meetings but - somehow - they hope to extend this to
"real" work. Put on a heavy VR headset and sit at a virtual desk in
front of a virtual computer to type on a virtual keyboard. Does it
make sense? No. But would it let Facebook suck down even more of that valuable user data? Hell yes, so that's the narrative their pushing.
We're gonna do everything in the Metaverse!
(Honestly, I could see some employers getting behind this. If you're
in a VR world, they can control what you see - no distractions! - and
better track what your doing to 'maximize employee output'. No popping
out the phone to check your messages or quick games of Solitaire. Even staring out the window is out. You put on the headset at 9AM and take
it off at 5PM and in the 8 hours between, it's all work. I've had
bosses who would DROOL at that sort of control.)
The Occulus sets are cheaper (and don't
require a stand-alone PC) but they're still $300 USD. So the gear
isn't cheap, undeniably. But neither are they so expensive that they
are outside the range of the average hobbiest. The lower-end models
are well within the same price range as GPUs and consoles.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Occulus sets are cheaper (and don'tThe Occulus 2 had its price raised to $400 because of increasing costs.
require a stand-alone PC) but they're still $300 USD. So the gear
isn't cheap, undeniably. But neither are they so expensive that they
are outside the range of the average hobbiest. The lower-end models
are well within the same price range as GPUs and consoles.
Even then its probably being made at a loss as Mark Zuckerbeg recently confirmed that they're pricing their hardware at a "break-even point
and in some cases, maybe even slightly at a loss". Which I read as
"we're not even trying to recoup are development costs at this point,
we're just selling them at a slightly lower price than the component
and assembly costs."
Sure at $400 they cheap enough that some people can afford to buy them
just to pay around with for while and then toss in a closet. However my
point is that for VR to be more than a niche product then they're going
to have to provide a level of utility to a wide range of people that's similar to $400 consoles. A console that ended up in the closets of
the few people willing to give it a try would be considered a huge flop.
VR headsets have a utility closer to flightsticks and steering wheels,
which are niche products because few people like the few games they work
with enough to consider them worth buying.
As I said before, even if VR headsets cost the same as standard console gamepad controllers they'd still remain a niche product. There's just
not enough applications for them for most people to justify buying
one. Compare that to the wide range of PC games that support console controllers and make them a relatively mainstream product even outside
the console market.
But VR costs a lot more and is always going to cost a lot more. Even at
$400 it will need to provide a much greater value than buying a console controller does for a PC gamer. That's not something a single killer
app can do. It's not something incrementally better hardware will do.
It's going to require a huge change in how people interact with computers, whether PCs, consoles or phones, across a wide range of applicaitons.
Despite the the poor value of VR, the VR market is doing suprisingly well. The real problem here is that VR is being kept alive by people buying
them for what they could maybe one day be. They have a similar utility
to specialized games controllers, a similar limited selection of games
that require or are improved significantly by them, but much less value because VR costs so much more. If people were buying VR headsets for
the games they actually play with them, and not to just collect dust
in their closets, then the market would've been declared dead years ago
and even Zuckerberg would have to admit defeat.
What kind of "real life work" requires VR?https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-250-vr-headset-to-counterpoint-the-1499-quest-pro/
What kind of "real life work" requires VR?
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-250-vr-headset-to-counterpoint-the-1499-quest-pro/
He definitely sees a use for it, just not in its present incarnation.
On 10/13/2022 11:18 AM, rms wrote:
I'm not sure his idea will fly. A lot of the point of conventions andWhat kind of "real life work" requires VR?https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-250-vr-headset-to-counterpoint-the-1499-quest-pro/
He definitely sees a use for it, just not in its present incarnation.
trade shows is to get together with people in person, have drinks, have
a meal, exchange papers and such. Basically engage in primate social behavior. I don't see VR at anything near our current tech replacing that.
What kind of "real life work" requires VR?https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-250-vr-headset-to-counterpoint-the-1499-quest-pro/
He definitely sees a use for it, just not in its present incarnation.
But these devices are getting better incrementally. I haven't triedI have an Air, yes I am a hardware junkie (as long is it is in the sub
Quest2, but others enjoy it quite a bit; PSVR2 will be here very soon;
this device https://www.nreal.ai/air/Â is a fascinating initial effort
at a super-lightweight headset for e.g., the Steamdeck:Â This Nreal
headset I wouldn't say is ready for primetime, but a more polished
design with a bit faster hardware to drive it could be pretty fantastic,
and lower that 'friction' dramatically -- note that this is not
primarily a VR headset but just for presenting a virtual huge screen
before your eyes, or for AR.
I do see a lot of very popular vids on VR games, so I'm thinking the usenet >folks are just old and set in their non-VR ways.
The resolution is way better than any vr headset I have used so far given
it has a higher pixel density than the average headset.
I do see a lot of very popular vids on VR games, so I'm thinking the usenet >folks are just old and set in their non-VR ways.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:48:04 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,167 |