Slashdot Mirror
Sony, Facebook, Google, Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft Now All Have a Hand In VR
An anonymous reader writes The Oculus Kickstarter breathed new life into consumer virtual reality when it raised more than $2.4 million just three years ago. Now, at the onset of 2015, some of the world's biggest tech companies have a vested interest in the growing consumer virtual reality industry. Road to VR takes a look back at VR in 2014 and the path that lead these tech giants to start taking it seriously.
even tough I personally always loved when VR when i tried it over the years it's currently nothing but a hype.
Just like the Wii was when it released people have to high expectations from the tech.
No 3d for me. I only have one good eye, you insensitive clod!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You know, when VR was in the spotlight the first time?
Used to hear about VR when I was a child. Now I'm a sysadmin with 20+ years experience and STILL waiting for it *in a meaningful way*: we're not in it for R&D.
3 years ago and, apart from some prototypes and some old games converted to "use" it, what do we actually have?
90's-style VR with upgraded graphics?
Sorry, but VR needs to find some kind of use case. Gaming, apparently, just isn't enough on its own to justify it.
Three years and many millions of dollars to basically strap two screens to your head like we did back in the days of VRML and flat-shaded polygons.
I want one for flight-simulation. Strongly. Provided it comes with 4-PI 6dof head-tracker, good resolution, and is supported in software. Willing to pay way more than the current estimated OR price (200-400 range?), just not the 20-40k of professional devices of the past.
However, I cannot really see how such a device would have any other good use. Maybe, by being cheap enough there'll still be a market for it, even if it ends up unused like other gadgets, for most people.
Looking forward to get one, cheaper than I had hoped for a few years ago; but probably would not invest long-term in companies making them...
Go to a huge field with friends, put on your augmented helmet (VR with cameras)
- Your friends become avatars
- You see a three story cyclops, or whatever
- You run around waving your arms to create shields, shoot fireballs with hand motions, etc...
THIS is what I want.
Every "first-person" game is essentially a virtual reality, it's just the experience is limited and requires a minimum of imagination. A total immersion experience in a virtual reality will be very cool, and the technology behind it will be very cool, but the limits of the existing 'technology', or even the technology 10 or 15 years ago, don't seem to bother people that much. Rather like how movies in the 50s and 60s did not have 'realistic' special effects, but people enjoyed them all the same, maybe better than the remakes with the latest special effects.
Let me just say that for me to care about VR it will need to be completely immersive. Think holodeck. It doesn't need to BE real as long as all of my senses are deceived into thinking it is real. I need to sense, taste, touch, etc. all objects. Otherwise it is a silly looking welder's goggle strapped to your head. Silly. Not very useful. Can you imagine the applications for VR if it felt actually real? Training, adventure, porn, you name it.
I can break out all my 90s VRML code. RICHES WILL BE MINE!
Yup! VR is The Next Big Thing!
It's going to change the world!
Like...touchscreens..
Like...tablets...
Like...webcams...
Like...sixteen different branded "social media" attempts by everybody and their brother...
*Sigh*
Don't get me wrong. Technically, I think VR is cool.
As an end-user, and one who's getting older and less tolerant of bullshit, the current and even upcoming additions to VR a just nowhere even CLOSE.
Honestly, it's really 10+ years from market ready. And even further from "widespread adoption".
Mainly because people keep trying to reinvent solutions to 2D problems for a 3D medium. Rather than actually figuring out what a 3D VR environment is good for on its own and using that as the "killer app".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Which of those cases didn't have an impact on the world?
It sounds like you're arguing FOR VR but don't realize it.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Touchscreens are great. I don't know wtf will happen if I touch a playing full screen youtube video on someone's huge 4" phone. Will it pause instantly?, or offer controls? How do you get out of full screen? Basic "DJ ethics" forbid from interrupting the music so I refuse to try out. I'm no longer "the computer guy" when people are playing with their computer-phones around. I jokingly ask where is the keyboard and/or tell I don't know how to use it without the Escape key.
I would hope that basic dj ethics would prevent you from playing freaking youtube videos for music in the first place
This is still a bad idea, I don't care how good the graphics are going to become. I'm sure that this is great for certain applications, like training the military or a doctor, but VR will always be on the fringes. We won't be ridding the bus to work wearing these hugh things playing games the whole time. Here is the main problem, no one will sit extended periods of time wearing that thing on their head when your still basically playing a FPS. This is great for a little bit, but people will give up on it because it will be too much fatigue after a while and that will not be worth it then.
I personally spend most of my time in it watching video. It allows me to have an impossibly large screen, without being intrusive to my family. It also allows me to watch content and play computer games that my daughter shouldn't be seeing/hearing.
Simulator gaming is certainly a big one, but I would like more FPS and even third-person perspective gaming as well. I'm utterly immune to being simulator sick, so I'm eager for experiences that might not work for everyone.
I also enjoy the more laid back experiences. I would love to see new star trek interactive technical manual software, for example.
I think any 3d gaming experience naturally suggests VR enhancing it, but there are other opportunities. Not everyone will stand for the bother of putting on goggles to experience it, but there's some of us who are perfectly fine.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So I don't use mass transit. If I did, I would be looking harder at GearVR to watch movies on my commute, no problem. This is something that really should be tried before going out of your way to dismiss it as having any market at all. It really isn't a bad idea for a significant chunk of people.
no one will sit extended periods of time wearing that thing on their head when your still basically playing a FPS
I have absolutely no issues playing for a long time. At least no problems unique to VR (as a husband and a father, binge gaming is usually off the table). I have played for hours on end while my family went out to do something a couple of times. The headset doesn't weigh much, meaning your neck doesn't get tired. The focus is at infinity, so it doesn't fatigue your eyes to focus. Some people prone to sickness may not be able to cope, but so far the people I know that have tried it and said they got sick can't play FPS games either for the same reason.
I won't claim my experience is how it will be for everyone, but I can't imagine I'm unique in not getting at all sick or fatigued.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I built 3 VR systems for a large defense contractor running SGI Infinite graphics. Later we added Linux (RH ES3) 5 node clusters, so you could say I built 6 labs. We had projectors and monitors that ran at 120 Hz even 20 years ago. It was rarely used except to test, because the human eye has difficulty seeing more than 60hz. "Optimal" display rate was 48 Hz per eye, which was 96Hz graphics rate if you used a single card (which was not an issue).
While motion tracking has improved due to the proliferation of cheap CPUs, there are still massive limitations simply due to practicality. I/O on a server that can process that many inbound channels is a biggie to overcome without a massive back plane.
The only difference between now and 20 years ago is that some people believe for "Entertainment" these systems will take off. It's counter intuitive if you know any history of VR in any other aspect (TVs, Movies, and Engineering), but they keep pushing. VR in work related extremely well to Human Factors Engineering, but had only "ooh ahh" value outside of this. I don't see "gaming"s implementation to be any different, limited payout for the investment.
As to the mobile devices with accelerometers they can only relate to a single point in VR. One object does not give anything meaningful in VR, and anyone that has worked with motion tracking should know that fact.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So you wouldn't watch any movies because you can't feel anything? You wouldn't play any sort of game because none of them provide perfect immersion?
We are talking about a rather *large* step in progressing immersion. Going from text adventure to side scrolling/overhead games to wolfenstein 3d to doom to quake, etc. Each step has added a new dimension to immersion, and this is just another step. It's not the last step but why bother waiting for the last step while settling for lesser immersion than is possible?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I didn't RTFA, but I also never heard about anything VR-related from either Apple or Microsoft.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Like most technologies, it does change the world when it reaches a certain point.
The first touchscreens (resistive) didn't change the world because the technology wasn't good enough. Capacitive touchscreens, on the other hand, changed smartphones in less than a decade.
Tablet really changed things. For casual Web browsing, instant messaging, email and video calls they're more useful than stationary desktops or laptops.
Ever heard of video calls? Or that thing called "YouTube"? Neither would exist without "webcams".
I'm also getting old, so I can only agree with you on that one. I understand forums where people share a common hobby but I don't understand social media at all. What pisses me off to no end is when a company gives us a Facebook URL instead of their own website domain.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So, still gonna have to play a LOT of catchup on this. Shiny hardware is nothing without an application for it. OpenSimulator and Linden Lab are solving this equation from the other end.
Furries make the internet go.
Which of those cases didn't have an impact on the world?
I didn't say "had an impact".
I said "changed".
While you may think of it as splitting hairs, the difference is quite real.
Each of the technologies talked about brought about an evolution in the market.
I'm talking about a world-wide revolution brought about by the tech. All the crazy shit they always promise and pie-in-the-sky about and never actually deliver.
It sounds like you're arguing FOR VR but don't realize it.
You apparently missed the part where I said I'm a fan of VR, as a concept. It's just that the current implementation is far, FAR behind where it needs to be to reasonably become a ubiquitous technology.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!