Is AR/VR already becoming an after thought in the tech world, and for consumers? Is it too soon? Did AR/VR not pan out to be the industry shifting new technology that we thought it would be?..... Thoughts?
Is VR already becoming an after thought?
- Thread starter rodneyej
- Start date
Can't wait to try it once I have better graphics hardware.
BTW, for those interested Elite Dangerous is currently 55% off, until Tuesday noon eastern or so: https://store.steampowered.com/app/359320/Elite_Dangerous/
Discounted price: $13.50. That's like three cappuccini at Starbucks. Worth it!
GraniteStateColin
Active member
I think it's a bit like 3D-TV. In spite of nearly every TV including it for a few years, it just never caught on -- it was too much work for customers to "enjoy" it. I say that as someone who bought a bunch of 3D movies and games and tried to evangelize 3D, and even I gave up on it. I couldn't even get my own family to watch it with me beyond the occasional novelty viewing.
In fact, I think VR faces more problems than 3D TV. With 3D TV, everyone in the household can enjoy it at the same time, if all are willing to wear the glasses (but just one person who doesn't like it, effectively means no one gets to watch it, because you can't just leave off the glasses and watch it like regular TV). With VR/MR, it's fundamentally isolationist and anti-social.
That immediately limits the market to people who live and play solo. OK, so that's still a decent-sized gaming market, but then you also have to further segment it to those who really care about the enhanced viewing and interactive experience vs. a 4k HDR experience on a big screen TV. And recall the lesson from the failure of 3D TV -- most people just aren't willing to wear stuff for entertainment purposes.
So, I do indeed think that in anything resembling its current form, it's just too niche of a market segment who cares for it to play a major role in changing the technology marketplace.
If we can get to holograms or something like Star Trek's Holodeck, so it can be enjoyed by multiple people without wearing funny gear, then I think it will succeed. Short of that, while we can't know for sure it won't still succeed, I'd say the odds are against it achieving any mainstream success. Of course, if it can be profitable for a small market of just few million users worldwide, then it may carry on as a niche product, like trackballs, steering wheels, or as a custom teaching/professional tool.
I also think things MR on the 2D display -- using the same device people are already using -- has more promise for achieving broad usage.
In fact, I think VR faces more problems than 3D TV. With 3D TV, everyone in the household can enjoy it at the same time, if all are willing to wear the glasses (but just one person who doesn't like it, effectively means no one gets to watch it, because you can't just leave off the glasses and watch it like regular TV). With VR/MR, it's fundamentally isolationist and anti-social.
That immediately limits the market to people who live and play solo. OK, so that's still a decent-sized gaming market, but then you also have to further segment it to those who really care about the enhanced viewing and interactive experience vs. a 4k HDR experience on a big screen TV. And recall the lesson from the failure of 3D TV -- most people just aren't willing to wear stuff for entertainment purposes.
So, I do indeed think that in anything resembling its current form, it's just too niche of a market segment who cares for it to play a major role in changing the technology marketplace.
If we can get to holograms or something like Star Trek's Holodeck, so it can be enjoyed by multiple people without wearing funny gear, then I think it will succeed. Short of that, while we can't know for sure it won't still succeed, I'd say the odds are against it achieving any mainstream success. Of course, if it can be profitable for a small market of just few million users worldwide, then it may carry on as a niche product, like trackballs, steering wheels, or as a custom teaching/professional tool.
I also think things MR on the 2D display -- using the same device people are already using -- has more promise for achieving broad usage.
VR is definitely not dead, especially when it's the only thing right now that can give you an immersive experience. I saw some ***** in these posts trying to compared it to 3D TV. He even went on to say that VR is isolating and lonely. How are you suppose to get the experience of being at a specific location? This is what VR brings to the table. There is even VR games similar to call of duty. You feel like you are actually their, you can even Crouch down, look all around, and even hold your virtual weapon close to your chest. You can even throw your virtual grenades like you would throw anything in real life away from you. As the person in this virtual world you see and feel what you do here, because you are physically doing these movements and can see in the virtual world the results of what you are doing in the real world. You cannot get that in AR. That experience is for VR and VR only. Just like how would driving a car around look in AR? Yet for VR you get the experience of being in that vehicle. With AR you will still see the room that you are in, or any furniture around you. AR is good for lots of things. But if you want an immersive feeling or experience, then VR is exactly what you need. That is why VR will never die. Because nothing else can give you the immersion that VR brings to the table.
NIST
New member
AR appears to be dead with no real push in sight or purpose. VR on the other hand is advancing with new hardware and a push by content and graphics chip manufacturers. Owning both an Oculus and Vive setup, being in the ecosystem really makes you aware of the content being produced for it. Such as movies, sports, concerts, WWE, games, experiences, YouTube, Facebook 360, etc... Content is being developed and delivered everywhere. The future looks bright.
There is not a good comparison. 3D TV was pretty much useless on home TVs and didn't make much difference in viewing (except for Avatar) so you ended wearing ridiculous glasses for no good reason. VR is a massive difference to the experience. The difference between looking at game on a screen in front of you or immersing yourself into the environment and game like you're there.
With current VR, when you sit, your neck is the limitation, therefore left analog controls character's movement and right analog + headset rotation offset determines character's facing.
When you stand, your room is the limitation. You can certainly design your game to rely no right analog for rotation and let user walk around freely in the environment. But, you will hit the wall eventually, forcing you to keep coming back to the center.
Best game we can make outta these limitations are arcade rail shooters or racers (and tbh, racers and rail shooters are very much alike, in terms of programming).
WMR?
There's no MR yet. Without spatial mapping (e.g. Project Kinect for Azure), current WMRs are just VRs.
Without spatial mapping (the one we use for HoloLens), you cannot replace your real world table with a 3d table, replace a coke can with a cylinder or replace someone standing next to you with an avatar.
* MS had a video about "what is MR".
* The only difference between current WMR and VRs are the position tracking mechanism. One's from headset, one's from cameras around the room.
In order for VR to thrive, we need cordless (WoA? small, less power consumption), we need spatial mapping (Kinect for Azure?).
Ultimately, we need body signal hijacking or... next level, brain wave reader & writer.
If MS wants to push AR for gaming... AR can do well in average living room environment.
But for now, it's for business.
We have VR experiment team in the studio. I believe VR can do well in amusement park so someone can stand next to it, to care and to hand out hygiene masks.
* Current VR hype comes from businessmen and enthusiasts.
When you stand, your room is the limitation. You can certainly design your game to rely no right analog for rotation and let user walk around freely in the environment. But, you will hit the wall eventually, forcing you to keep coming back to the center.
Best game we can make outta these limitations are arcade rail shooters or racers (and tbh, racers and rail shooters are very much alike, in terms of programming).
WMR?
There's no MR yet. Without spatial mapping (e.g. Project Kinect for Azure), current WMRs are just VRs.
Without spatial mapping (the one we use for HoloLens), you cannot replace your real world table with a 3d table, replace a coke can with a cylinder or replace someone standing next to you with an avatar.
* MS had a video about "what is MR".
* The only difference between current WMR and VRs are the position tracking mechanism. One's from headset, one's from cameras around the room.
In order for VR to thrive, we need cordless (WoA? small, less power consumption), we need spatial mapping (Kinect for Azure?).
Ultimately, we need body signal hijacking or... next level, brain wave reader & writer.
If MS wants to push AR for gaming... AR can do well in average living room environment.
But for now, it's for business.
We have VR experiment team in the studio. I believe VR can do well in amusement park so someone can stand next to it, to care and to hand out hygiene masks.
* Current VR hype comes from businessmen and enthusiasts.
Last edited:
Andres Zuccarino
New member
Hi, I'm from Argentina. My experience was incredible, considering the beginnings of VR in the 80's we are a great breakthrough. Now the big question is whether it is enough and if it will fail again or not. The first problem is the cost, the good thing is that it is going down, but even more must go down. The other problem is the compatibility of the games and applications between the different platforms, so that this becomes massive has to have a bigger store. It should also be more comfortable. However the progress is amazing, the potential that VR has is incredible and not only for the games, for example when you see a huge Netflix screen you realize that it could even be the future of the cinema, you could acquire the virtual ticket to see a premiere of a movie, and you would not have problems with the location with respect to the screen, what if you could see a recital live in 360 ?. But going back to the present I think it is close, it will not be massified yet, but it will continue to grow little by little if the costs go down and they become more comfortable. It also occurred to me that it would be easier to grow if you create shops or venues to play VR and AR, which can not initially acquire their own VR could occasionally go to play with friends in place where this is offered experience. We already know that in several countries there are places where you can participate in AR games championships, if this expands along with VR and the games adapt to this, it could be a big boost.
GraniteStateColin
Active member
Mythos13, I believe that's true for some, just like 3D was exciting for some. For others, both 3D and VR are nothing more than a gimmick. For 3D, you could get every IMAX and other 3D screened movie in BluRay 3D, far more than just Avatar. But people weren't willing to deal with the hardware hassle. The market reaction was effectively, "watching TV should not require special glasses." I see the same reaction from VR users -- there are a bunch of excited early adopters, a few others who think "Oh that's mildly interesting" and the rest, the majority, who just shrug and say, "Seems like a lot of money and hassle for nothing."
Keep in mind 3D TV was effectively FREE and it still didn't catch on because it required a different way of doing things people were already use do to doing (sitting on the couch and watching TV). VR has a smaller target market (gamers are a much smaller segment of the market than TV watchers), but it's probably more willing to change if it dramatically improves gaming (to your point).
So is there anything more gaming-related we could look at in recent history? Yes, we have 2 recent hardware changes that are somewhat similar: the Nintendo Wii and it's motion controllers and Microsoft's Kinect. Motion controllers on the Wii succeeded, in part because of good games that specifically took advantage of that system and because it was cheaper than the other game systems without them (PS3 and Xbox 360). Kinect did not succeed (though started off good with the original 360 version based on a wave of hope for what it could do), probably ultimately failing because there weren't many hit games that only made sense with the Kinect, even though it was also included free originally with the Xbox One.
Based on that history, I'd say that VR will succeed only if there emerge great games that only make sense when played using VR gear. It's hard to imagine a game that needs that kind of gear to work beyond some niche experiences, not a AAA game. Therefore, I conclude VR will probably not gain mainstream acceptance, at least not in anything resembling its current form, but I wouldn't bet my life on that conclusion. There's certainly room for someone clever to come up with a great game that requires VR and surprise us. If that happens, I'll be the first in line to buy the latest VR gear.
I don’t think it’s an afterthought so much as it grew as quick as it could, given the cost and complexity of it, and now it’s hit the plateau of its potential until other factors change dramatically.
Unless costs are reduced and people buy hardware capable of handling VR it’s not going anywhere fast. AR still has far more potential in the long term, IMO, but it faces the same problems.
Unless costs are reduced and people buy hardware capable of handling VR it’s not going anywhere fast. AR still has far more potential in the long term, IMO, but it faces the same problems.
Similar threads
- Question
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram