VR's Tough Demand: Your Undivided Attention (axios.com)

Ina Fried, writing for Axios: If you want to know why virtual reality hasn't taken off, you might want to blame our addiction to smartphones. Why? While the power of VR is to be transported into an immersive experience, consumers will demand a lot out of something that makes them give up Twitter and Facebook, even for a few minutes. One perspective: "It has to be a really compelling reason to get you to give up all that," Shauna Heller, a former Oculus worker who now consults on VR projects, said Thursday at the Mobile Future Forward conference near Seattle. "There aren't just a ton of those reasons just yet."

Comments

Compelling reason: VR interactive porn

[HBI]

Crack that nut (ha-ha) and you have your compelling reason.

Re:Compelling reason: VR interactive porn

[oic0]

It exists. Several titles. Look up VR Kanojo. Has better graphics and animation than any of the normal games for it lol.

Re:Compelling reason: VR interactive porn

[HBI]

The documentation looks nifty. I think it needs some more 'peripherals' to take it to the next level. ;-)

There was an Infocom game back in the 80s, A Mind Forever Voyaging, which had something called a joybooth in it. People were addicted to the things, wanting to spend all their time in the joybooth. I can imagine the VR system as being described morphing into something like a joybooth. With the right peripherals, of course.

The explanation is bullshit.

[klingens]

Apologies for the real reason: the games suck. No one wants to buy them, so no one buys a headset for this one awesome game one can't live without.
People play games all the time, in fullscreen, no twitter.
Even if there were a twitter addiction: one could easily integrate it, it's simply a monitor like any other, it doesn't matter if I display twitter on it or a game. Even the input could be managed: every Windows Version has speech recognition for years. A microphone isn't really new tech when you have a VR headset.

Re:The explanation is bullshit.

[93 Escort Wagon]

I would argue there's a different and fundamental reason VR hasn't taken off - for most people, it's interesting for a grand total of maybe 10-15 minutes. After that, the novelty factor is gone and they don't see a reason to try it again.

Re:The explanation is bullshit.

[bahwi]

"People play games all the time, in fullscreen, no twitter."

So, smart phones exist now. I'm typing this in a full-screen web browser window, and I can check twitter, facebook, email, without even having to alt-tab!

Re:The explanation is bullshit.

[Immerman]

> any remotely interesting game requires serious hardware

Hardly. Realistic graphics aren't required for an interesting game, they just make for better advertising footage. And as long as you're okay with stylized graphics, most any budget gaming PC has the chops to run VR without trouble.

Now, convincing people to pay $600 to interact with a VR world that would look more at home on the Wii... that might be a challenge. Get Nintendo to release a mainline Zelda game on it to set people's expectations appropriately, and it could take off.

Re:The explanation is bullshit.

[K10W]

Apologies for the real reason: the games suck. No one wants to buy them, so no one buys a headset for this one awesome game one can't live without. People play games all the time, in fullscreen, no twitter. Even if there were a twitter addiction: one could easily integrate it, it's simply a monitor like any other, it doesn't matter if I display twitter on it or a game. Even the input could be managed: every Windows Version has speech recognition for years. A microphone isn't really new tech when you have a VR headset.

I'd argue many of the games are excellent but problem is the games where it really shines are niche compared to the casual market. Sure the stuff pushed by the VR stores frontpage to try and capture the casuals market are junk but everyone I know including myself bought for specific games (mostly flight simulators, although Onward was a consideration for some as it is more like Arma for vr than an fps). For hardcore study simulators it is actually the opposite and VR coupled with them is probably as good as it gets. I play a lot of DCSworld in VR and waiting for XPlane11 to support it, so much easier flying when you have depth perception, especially low level and/or where you need high situational awareness.

Outside of those areas though I consider it naught but a gimmick. I doubt those niches will ever gain mainstream appeal due to steep learning curve and skill levels and practise required, I mean reading the manual just so you can spool up your engines many hate and prefer insta-on single press at expense of realism and flexibility when you understand it. I'm sure there are other niche games I don't know about like many don't know of proper sims with full system simulation and clickable cockpits with all buttons functioning. Still the resolution is still not great but is passable with enough tweaking. Still struggle seeing some text in the M2000C cockpit though.

Oh, please

[JohnFen]

Smartphones have nothing to do with it. I see three things impeding the mass acceptance of VR:

1) It's expensive
2) You have to wear it
3) There's no use case compelling enough to overcome 1 and 2 (unless, perhaps, you're a hardcore gamer)

Re:Oh, please

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect VR will become ubiquitous when it is competitive with multiple monitors in quality and price. Why buy 3 monitors when you can just buy a headset and turn your head? and you can take it with you. Also will need to have an AR overlay (or underlay) so you're not blind when you have it on, but some headsets already have that.

Re:Oh, please

[JohnFen]

I think it has to be much cheaper than that, or there has to be a use case substantially better than "monitor replacement".

If I had the choice between a VR headset and three monitors, I'd take the three monitors. They are more generally useful and don't require me to wear any gear.

Re:Oh, please

[The-Ixian]

Exactly.

This sounds to me like someone in the '80s saying that computers are being held back because people are addicted to their walkmans

Gee... could it be that the technology is in its infancy and you have to strap bulky equipment to your face? Nah... must be the smart phones...

Re:Oh, please

[tomhath]

"Porn" is the answer to all three of your points

Re:Oh, please

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Unfortunately I don't think a killer app will appear. New technology platforms that take off are driven by a killer app. Those that don't are driven by the idea that a killer app will come.

As for the explanation, totally agree. Imagine it's 2003, no smartphones, and PCs are somehow capable of doing current VR at the current price point. I can't imagine the adoption being any different.

Re:Oh, please

[tlhIngan]

Smartphones have nothing to do with it. I see three things impeding the mass acceptance of VR:

1) It's expensive
2) You have to wear it
3) There's no use case compelling enough to overcome 1 and 2 (unless, perhaps, you're a hardcore gamer)

No, it's not expensive - your smartphone can do it with a cheap addon. VR purists may scoff, but it is an economical way to get into VR.

There are other reasons for VR's non-popularity.

First - the goggles. People hate 3D because they have to wear glasses. Now you want to strap on their heads a heavy piece of gear? They weren't willing to wear glasses to see 3D, I don't see them willing to put something heavier and more massive on their heads. Unless you can get "glasses free VR" working, it'll be a problem.

Second, the space. People hated Kinect for the space it required, and they hate moving in the space - see the failure of Kinect.

That's two hits - you're combining the worst of two failing technologies - 3D and Kinect and you expect success?

This third one is interesting - while wearing VR goggles, you can't pick up your smartphone and quickly check out facebook or a tweet or something. Or even change the radio station you're listening to.

I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason VR hasn't taken off is that it has some major flaws:
1. Lack of focus perception (focus point appears to be somewhere around 3m from your face)
2. Inability to have smooth movement without causing motion sickness, which limits gaming to "interact" and "teleport".
3. It's expensive. People won't justify spending $500 on a VR set, on top of the price of the console/pc needed to run the games, if they don't see great things to do in it. Specially if they don't have a large room to play on, and gamers tend to live in small rooms.

Re:I don't think so

[Immerman]

I've had some very compelling experiences playing with a friend's Vive, in a relatively small room. I think the hardware is "good enough" for a wide range of compelling experiences, but developers haven't yet worked out how to make compelling use of it outside a narrow range of experiences.

Focal distance is certainly a bit of an issue, but honestly I doubt it's a dealbreaker for most gamers - we're all already acclimated to staring at a flat screen a fixed distance from our face. I only even really noticed it when trying to look at things up close (less than a a few feet away)

As for smooth motion - you left out one big solution: cockpits. Most people have little problem with artificial motion, so long as they have a well defined stationary enclosure around them. Cockpit games have fallen out of the mainstream for some time, but they seem to do wonderfully in VR. And they could be adapted to a wide range of game genres. Mech deathmatch was quite popular back in the day, and could be adapted to most first person experiences. There's not even any reason you need actual mechs - just present players with a "drone operator booth" lined with 3D windows looking into the world as though you were sitting inside your avatar's head. Similarly most any strategy or other "tabletop" game could easily be controlled from your hovering "god-mobile".

As I see it, the biggest problem with motion is that it's been a long time since "smooth motion" was popular in games - pretty much any modern FPS puts you in control of a twitchy superhuman avatar that races around the playing field at dozens of miles per hour, making sudden turns and lunges that would give any real human whiplash, if it didn't outright liquefy them. And yeah, it's probably rather difficult to simulate that in VR without causing acute nausea, even with a cockpit.

Space is a bigger issue - backpack VR in an empty warehouse seems like it would have some real potential. But then so does an omni-directional treadmill. Personally I haven't had the opportunity to try either, but have heard some great things about both. Of course neither is cheap.

As I see it there are really only two problems:

1) Lack of compelling software - largely because it's difficult if not impossible to port mainstream games directly to VR. It's an entirely new interaction paradigm with poorly understood "solutions", and resources spent on making it work well could be more cost-effectively spent on improving the mainstream non-VR experience.

2) Cost. By it's nature its consumer market is pretty much limited to hard core gamers, even at half the price. And yeah, I've spent almost a grand on a 40" HDTV to use as a monitor over a decade ago, and never regretted it, but that instantly enhanced all the games I was already playing, as well as being great for working on various other projects. And it didn't require a major PC upgrade to use. And I could be confident that it would continue to be supported by games for many years to come.

VR doesn't offer that. I mean yeah, Steam offers it's "virtual theater" mode, but I'm not paying $600 and isolating myself from the real world for the same basic effect I could get by just sitting a bit closer to my monitor.

Now, if they offered a true 3D window into the game world it might be different. I'm actually rather surprised they don't - 3D shutter glasses were an interesting flash in the pan years ago, showing that modern games could be shoehorned into displaying in stereo. That might well require videocard driver support, but seeing how as VR seems to be a more promising long-term driving force in videocards than the pending jump to 4k, you'd think they'd be willing to get in on the game.

Even game makers themselves could get in on that action - I mean yeah, it's going to be totally lack-luster "VR support", but even just implementing a floating 3D window into the game world, combined with head tracking so that you could look over your shoulder, would add a lot to the immersiveness of a game, and serve as an extra carrot to attract VR owners, while costing almost nothing to implement.

Re:I don't think so

[WaffleMonster]

As many have already mentioned, the problem with VR as currently delivered is that it has been ridiculously overhyped

VR actually delivers something new and amazing which isn't something I can say for any of the pointless fads I've seen paraded around over the last few years.

I feel sorry for people who haven't tried Google earth VR or piloted their own spaceship... many still seem to think VR is low res TV screens glued into a pair of glasses or that it's about seeing in "3D".

that it sucks to high heaven in too many aspects.

I don't give a fuck. It's still amazing. Do you think the first generation of peepz growing up with television were like... what the hell low resolution, black and white, takes forever to start up, vacuum tubes are finicky, static, ghostly pictures... Were they all like ... no fuck that we want 90" QLED Technicolor 4K HD or no fucking sale or were they just happy for what it offered that they didn't have before?

Another one to add: wearing those visors and moving your hands in the air make you look like a complete dork. You'd better wear it in the privacy of your home, where no one can see what a dork you are. Let's wait twenty years or so, and we'll see.

Even if you just wear it at home and lock the door behind you (highly recommended) still leaves "dork marks" on your face for hours after using it.

Re:I don't think so

[0123456]

"Even if you just wear it at home and lock the door behind you (highly recommended) still leaves "dork marks" on your face for hours after using it."

If it does, you're wearing it wrong.

VR is undeniably the future.

[SensitiveMale]

After playing my oculus rift for 5 minutes, VR is here and it is going to be everything and everywhere. Don't worry about social feeds, games will figure out a way to shoehorn feeds in. Was it the Populous game that would have one of the little people run up to you with a sign when you got an email? Games will figure out a way for people to get their social drugs mainlined while in the rift.

VR is the future and nothing will stop that. Eventually, and I'm guessing within 8 years, VR will not only be with the huge isolation googles, but will be also be possible with the Oakley style glasses as well.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[JohnFen]

I could see VR becoming a solid high-end gaming accessory, but if it's to achieve anything like mass acceptance, it needs to be useful for something other than games (or become really, really inexpensive).

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[SensitiveMale]

It will be. Imagine going to a business meeting, picking up a pair a VR glasses that look like oakleys, and everything on the meeting table and walls is VR/Augmented reality. That's the future.

Or working on equipment and having the documents projected above your arm because you're wearing VR/AR glasses.

Or looking out over a factory and seeing info bubbles of significant information over each piece of equipment and you can zoom in to any specific piece to see production or maintenance data.

VR is undeniably the future and it will be everywhere and in everything.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[JohnFen]

Maybe.

Of your examples, though, the only one that really seems like it adds value is the equipment maintenance one -- and that's pretty niche (and would not be that useful to engineers who are already familiar with the equipment).

In any case, I'm not going to say it can't happen! Tech advances in unpredictable ways, and it's possible that something will happen that will overcome the problems with VR as it exists right now. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime, but you never know.

One thing that I do know is that VR comes around on a regular basis, and every time it does there are people proclaiming that it's an inevitable future. So far, they've been wrong every time. That doesn't mean that they will always be wrong, of course.

All that said, there's a huge problem with the notion that it will "be everywhere and in everything": price. In order for that to happen, VR has to be straight-up cheap. I don't think this tech is likely to become cheap any time soon. It's more realistic to think that it will become a tool that most people will use in certain situations, but won't be ubiquitous.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[Areyoukiddingme]

It will be. Imagine going to a business meeting, picking up a pair a VR glasses that look like oakleys, and everything on the meeting table and walls is VR/Augmented reality. That's the future.

Every single one of your examples is AR, not VR.

VR is "going" to a business meeting by putting on your VR goggles while in your pajamas and seeing a fancy board room with you and all the other attendees in suits, even though they're probably in their PJs too, and considering it as good as actually going to a meeting. Which won't happen without a Juanita Marquez doing her thing as depicted in Snow Crash, namely creating an avatar system with virtual facial expressions with high enough fidelity to real faces to match reality, driven by data from both an external camera (for the uncovered parts of the face) and internal cameras that do both eye tracking and facial expression capture (for the covered parts of the face).

Both good AR as you described and really good VR as Neal Stephenson described are hard problems. Very hard problems. It could be everywhere and in everything, but there's quite a big gap between current VR and what's needed to actually achieve that ubiquity.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Your first scenario is not going to happen. What will happen is once every year or so, someone will make them fire up the VR stuff during a meeting, and half the meeting will involve waiting for tech ops to set it back up.

VR is fine for annotating factory equipment orother 3D things. But most movies barely use 2D imagery.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[Toasterboy]

Yep. It's still pretty rough around the edges, but it's absolutely here. There are VR ports for DOOM based games (Doom, Doom2, Hexen, etc), Quake based games, and Duke Nukem3D, and some new and fairly serious VR titles are starting to show up. Those old games were *hoping* for VR to take off 20 years ago, and they are awesome now that it's available. Games *actually* designed for current VR are starting to gel. Orbus VR (a VRMMO) is amazing. VR with head tracking is awesome, but once you get touch in there, it's a whole different level of awesome. When you have hands in VR, it's substantially more immersive.

You need a pretty burly video card to use VR, and for Oculus CV1 specifically one that can handle HDMI 1.3 for 1440x1200@90fps, which means you need a pretty recent video card, ideally a high end one. The dev kits will work on older hardware though... I just picked up several more of the DK2 dev kit for cheap on Ebay so I can host a VR LAN party....they don't support touch but for old shooters they will rock it.

VR is drafting off the fact that cell phone screens (the main component) are now a commodity item that is mass produced and has phone vendors doing all the R&D to shrink the screens and increase the resolutions. The price is going to drop as it becomes more mainstream. There were nifty VR headsets 20 years ago, but the display tech sucked and was too expensive... now it's good enough, and *cheap enough*, and comfortable enough to work as a product. It's still going to iterate fast though...current headsets are going to be superseded fast as VR takes off.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[PCM2]

Your first scenario is not going to happen. What will happen is once every year or so, someone will make them fire up the VR stuff during a meeting, and half the meeting will involve waiting for tech ops to set it back up.

Real talk. Let's just think about the amount of meeting-time that is wasted getting the person who's causing the echo or feedback to mute their microphone.

Re:VR is undeniably the future.

[SensitiveMale]

Every single one of your examples is AR, not VR.

Except the first, as I mentioned.

Re:How are VR/AR related to social networks?

[Immerman]

They both require attention to use. And the current VR software doesn't offer convenient in-world pop-ups for them - you basically have to leave VR to check your phone. Of course I don't know many people who feel obligated to step away from a non-VR deathmatch to check their phone either, so I'm not sure how relevant that really is. Most realtime games already demand your undivided attention, and the multiplayer ones can't be paused.

Sounds more like Facebook is starting a stealth marketing campaign for a new, more in-your-face version of their dreck on the Oculus - gotta do something to make up for turning the undisputed pre-market tech leader into an also-ran.

Limited content, hard to use, single user, price

[enjar]

Nothing I regularly watch/consume has a compelling VR port or option. There are multiple vendors, I don't know what's compatible with what, or what's exclusive to what. Reminds me of VHS/Beta and HD-DVD/Blu Ray. There are wires and cables and drivers and bits and parts. Some days it's a hassle to find the remote control when the kids hid it somewhere, let alone digging up all the bits of a VR rig. Also, I'm the only one who can enjoy it. Will we need to have family movie night sharing the VR goggles? Lastly, price -- looks like a VR rig is something like $500. I can buy a fairly decent television we can all watch TV/movies on, or play games on. If we wanted to have a family VR night I'd have to spend $2K on VR stuff, plus whatever they might need to plug into (console? PC?). I'm not interested in buying four playstations, xboxes or PCs.

Re:Wrong.

[rogoshen1]

It's horrible, it's like the sun letting lose with a coronal mass ejaculation

I don't think that phrase means what you think it does. but either way, damn that's hot.

Re:Wrong.

[JohnFen]

I don't use Facebook or Twitter either, so I don't know why the article keeps bringing those programs up.

I'm guessing it's because someone has determined that the sort of people who are likely to be interested in buying one of those things are also the sort of people who use Facebook and Twitter a lot? Otherwise, you're right -- bringing that up makes no sense.

Re: English, please

[TechyImmigrant]

Reasons are weightless, so it's a tautology.

Re:English, please

[HornWumpus]

You can run a browser, media player etc in virtual desktop and task switch like any computer. But it sucks, so nobody does.

VR's advantage is immersiveness. Multitasking isn't the point.

Re:Wrong.

[cayenne8]

I guess.

I don't do FB or twitter.....and have no problem putting my phone down.

Do people out there really have it so bad that they can't bear to put down or miss a FB post or tweet?

Sounds borderline addiction to me.....is it really *that* widespread?

Is this generational (mostly a millennial thing)?

Re:Why VR will never work

[HornWumpus]

Put your grandma in front a big screen, 3d shooter. Bet she gets motion sick.

You build tolerance, but the content has to be carefully written to not make you motion sick.

Re:How are VR/AR related to social networks?

[cayenne8]

Of course I don't know many people who feel obligated to step away from a non-VR deathmatch to check their phone either, so I'm not sure how relevant that really is. Most realtime games already demand your undivided attention, and the multiplayer ones can't be paused.

The hell with real time games...how about something real and real time.....driving?

Are there that many idiots that can't put the phone down to simply drive? I see a lot out there, usually the ones swerving around, but I didn't think it that pervasive.

Re:Limited content, hard to use, single user, pric

[lexman098]

Nothing I regularly watch/consume has a compelling VR port or option.

That's because it has to target VR in the first place to be truly compelling. There are games/videos where this is the case but you haven't heard of them because you haven't looked.

There are multiple vendors, I don't know what's compatible with what, or what's exclusive to what.

It's actually pretty easy. Steam tells you which games are compatible with which platforms (usually it's both) and it's very easy to run Steam's VR software with a rift or vive.

Also, I'm the only one who can enjoy it. Will we need to have family movie night sharing the VR goggles?

What you see/hear is displayed on the TV as well for the benefit of others. It's like playing a game where only one person can use the controller at a time. It's still social.

Lastly, price -- looks like a VR rig is something like $500.

Oculus just had a sale where everything you needed was included for $400 new. You can get used sets for even cheaper. This is console territory.

If we wanted to have a family VR night I'd have to spend $2K on VR stuff, plus whatever they might need to plug into (console? PC?).

Now you're just blatantly lying due to what seems like an inherent objection to new technology. Maybe do some more research before knocking it?

Re:Why VR will never work

[110010001000]

Sorry. You cannot code the fix between what the eyes see and the inner ear senses.

So what I need is a VR phone in my VR world?

[Jhon]

"While the power of VR is to be transported into an immersive experience, consumers will demand a lot out of something that makes them give up Twitter and Facebook, even for a few minutes."

Then program a VR phone in my hand. Then I can run apps in my VR world and check on real-world twitter and facebook if I want.

This might not be ideal for those watching VR porn. There will usually be other things in your VR hands during that experience.

Re:Wrong.

[gnick]

Do people out there really have it so bad that they can't bear to put down or miss a FB post or tweet?

Yes. There are more of those people than you might think.

Sounds borderline addiction to me.....

Borderline?

Is this generational (mostly a millennial thing)?

I think at least mostly.

Re:Why VR will never work

[AK9oh7]

I disagree, you can to some extent. Robo Recall being a great example of what's possible.

Re:Why VR will never work

[TuringTest]

That doesn't matter if the simulated world matches your real world movement. I got sick as hell after five minutes in the fake walking of the Resident Evil game, but can easily stay for an hour of uninterrupted stand-up movement with the Vive really walking around the room.

Re:Why VR will never work

[HornWumpus]

You can leave up up and control rates on the other axis. Like most driving and helicopter sims.

Assetto Corsa is pretty much 'puke free', except for the hill climb course.

Who says they'll never have a safe way to fuck with your inner ears? Not today, but never is a long time.

Silly me

[BrookHarty]

I thought it was the low-rez pixelated lcd screens, and motion sickness due to low refresh.

Valve's demo for VR is amazing, the portal repair is a great teaser. HD 360 full immersive movies is awesome to watch.

But those pixels...

Re:Limited content, hard to use, single user, pric

[enjar]

Partially devil's advocate below. I'm playing the role of "dude who likes TVs and console games with limited time because of family" ... or maybe "mass market guy". I'm not even going into the "retired people" or "people who can barely operate their smartphone" segments of the mass market. I'm doing this since the OP was specifically about "VR taking off". In my mind, that means it's a mainstream technology like a smartphone, TV, app, game or other thing you could reasonably expect the person next to you on a flight to know about.

Nothing I regularly watch/consume has a compelling VR port or option.

That's because it has to target VR in the first place to be truly compelling. There are games/videos where this is the case but you haven't heard of them because you haven't looked.

I see advertising for AAA game titles, movies releasing on DVD, movies in the theater, TV shows, upcoming sports events, when big name shows come back for a new season. I get this all passively while watching TV, watching youtube, listening to the radio or reading a magazine. Why don't I remember an advertisement for Monday Night Football being broadcast in VR? Why don't I see an ad for one of those Fathom events in VR? Why isn't Ticketmaster selling me access to concerts in VR? That's compelling content for the mass market. I don't go looking for it -- it finds me, or I look for it because there's some aspect of it that interests me -- a band a like, a team I like, a show I like. I don't go around looking for useful things to do with my TV or game console ... I already know why it's useful.

There are multiple vendors, I don't know what's compatible with what, or what's exclusive to what.

It's actually pretty easy. Steam tells you which games are compatible with which platforms (usually it's both) and it's very easy to run Steam's VR software with a rift or vive.

What's Steam? What platforms? What's a rift? What's a vive? I could reasonably expect a realistic response from a PC gamer on the Steam question, of course, but from a console gamer's perspective Steam is something they have heard about for the PC, if they have PC gamer friends. And the console gamers outnumber the PC gamers by a lot.

Also, I'm the only one who can enjoy it. Will we need to have family movie night sharing the VR goggles?

What you see/hear is displayed on the TV as well for the benefit of others. It's like playing a game where only one person can use the controller at a time. It's still social.

I can only imagine this would end up with a lot of fighting and tears with both kids wanting to play simultaneously.

Lastly, price -- looks like a VR rig is something like $500.

Oculus just had a sale where everything you needed was included for $400 new. You can get used sets for even cheaper. This is console territory.

But the Oculus still needs to connect to something ... looking at their site, eyeballing the "recommended" spec as about a $700 desktop PC. I'm sure I could build it for less, but again, this is mass market we are talking about ... people that don't build PCs but buy them ... and people have not been buying PCs. Honestly for $400 (or $1100), mass market people are going to view that as "too expensive".

If we wanted to have a family VR night I'd have to spend $2K on VR stuff, plus whatever they might need to plug into (console? PC?).

Now you're just blatantly lying due to what seems like an inherent objection to new technology. Maybe do some more research before knocking it?

As I said, I'm answering this from the point of mass market. I adopt new technologies all the time. Mass market adopts stuff when it's easy to use, easy to explain and largely works out of the box and is affordable. Especially for entertainment stuff. Hardcore PC gamers are not t

VR missing use cases

[sjbe]

VR's advantage is immersiveness. Multitasking isn't the point.

True but immersive to do what exactly? That's the problem with VR and has been since its inception. Aside from a few vertical simulation use cases (like flight simulation) and more recently some niche gaming it simply don't have that killer application to make to go mainstream. It's not that the technology is bad or anthing like that but it's hard to imagine any use cases where your grandmother is going to be strapping on a VR headset either. I think the main use of VR will be as a technology test bed for AR applications which is actually pretty useful - just not in the way people imagine. AR has FAR more and more obvious use cases than VR and a lot of the technology will likely be shared. I used to have a day job working on VR technology and it's cool stuff but people imagine it to be more useful than it really is in the real world.

Re:VR missing use cases

[lance_of_the_apes]

People imagine it's for games, but VR is not ready to go mainstream. Too expensive to get the hardware sales worthy of being targeted by game developers. It has many use cases in virtually (heh) every industry and businesses are more than happy to plunk down a few thousand bucks if it gives them an advantage. Few are targeting those applications or making it easier for non-programmer types to build their own, however. I'm working on that.

Re:VR is terribly inconvenient.

[oic0]

Both headsets are capable of the same things. Oculus by default only has a sensor setup for front facing. It costs $60 to add a rear camera so you can rotate. Neither require a large area except when simulating a room. It is a pain to take them on and off though. If they had higher resolution to make desktop work more feasible (I can bring up my normal desktop in VR any time) and didn't require to be off to finish installing programs, it would be a non issue.

Re:Its expensive as fuck,

[HornWumpus]

Spoiled. Flight Unlimited on a VFX1. Those were hard to read gauges.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a millennial. My mom's generation is the one that can't stop constantly checking fb, posting stupid videos, raging about the government, etc.

Millennial actually have to work and shit. We're not housewives of broken down 60 year olds on disability.

Re:Tried it

[JohnFen]

You can't judge a technology by trying out the worst instantiation of that technology.

Add to the list...

[XSportSeeker]

Huh, I never thought about this idea of smartphones competing with VR, but I guess it's one more to the list.

- They are too expensive. We're talking about a market that's less than 1% of the world. VR cannot be and will not be popular or mainstream ever until it gets cheap enough for everyone to at least give it a go. Why do you think gaming became mainstream? Because of piracy, basically;

- Bad initial marketing strategy. VR should've gone the way of multiplayer games first and foremost. How did multiplayer games got popularized? By popping up on places where you could play by the hour, like Lan houses, cybercafes and whatnot. The whole deal is expensive, people are not willing to pay a fortune just to try it, so at least for now in a stage that there's not a whole lot of compeling content to try, it should've started as a B2B thing;

- The VR sickness problem. It'll never be for everyone because lots of people cannot deal with the side effects of using VR for prolonged periods of time. Tech could advance in this area, but we're not there just yet, and I dunno if this push for VR will last long enough to overcome it;

- Wearing something obstrusive and uncomfortable. Both VR and AR will have better chances of working out when they come in a form factor that is closer to sunglasses or lenses. We have several huge obstacles to overcome to get there, and again, I dunno if the current push is strong enough to keep things going until we get there.

The undivided attention problem is not that much of an issue, as long as you have something that deserves it. And if notifications and smartphone related stuff is really that much of an issue, you could just connect your smartphone to your computer and divise a system for that content to go through anyways.

Re:How are VR/AR related to social networks?

[Immerman]

Yeah, but you usually only really need one foot and the other knee to drive. Ever tried to score a head shot with your knee?

More seriously though, games are engaging - not like driving that's just a tedious necessity to get from A to B. You almost never need much attention while driving, and 999 times out of 1000 if you can remove it entirely for brief periods without problems*. It's that last 1 time that's a killer though - when something happens that demands your immediate full attention, and you miss it because you weren't paying enough attention. And unfortunately our intuition is terrible at properly weighting such low-probability/high-risk events.

*if they're swerving - triply shame on them, their driving skills are clearly still insufficient to allow for *any* distractions.

I don't think so

[OneHundredAndTen]

As many have already mentioned, the problem with VR as currently delivered is that it has been ridiculously overhyped, and that it sucks to high heaven in too many aspects. Another one to add: wearing those visors and moving your hands in the air make you look like a complete dork. You'd better wear it in the privacy of your home, where no one can see what a dork you are. Let's wait twenty years or so, and we'll see.

Re:coming soon...

[JohnFen]

why do you think they paid 2.3 *billion* dollars for oculus?

I thought it was just because Zuckerberg got a boner for VR.

Re:English, please

[Daetrin]

Personally i want to multitask between VR and internet, and VR and music, and VR and video, and VR and paying attention to my SO, and VR and the TV show my SO is watching, and VR and what my cat is doing, and VR and food, and VR and knowing that no one is watching me act like an idiot while i can't see them.

Being able to open a browser or a media player in VR will only address three of those eight concerns.

.

Re:English, please

[HornWumpus]

You're SO watches the VR porn. You supply the 'feel around'.

VR Goggles, just really dorky immersive TV's

[fredness]

Really agree with JohnFen's post. Add to that, any technology that equates to 'putting a bag over your head' to operate must have an especially compelling use case for it to be widely adopted. Racercar driving, Scuba diving, spacewalking/high altitude cockpits, firefighting, welding for example really have no helmetless options that are sane for the most part. Lastly, in the quest to view even larger televisions, VR goggles take the approach of moving the pixels closer to the face. And indeed there seems to be many who use the goggles not for 3D, but just to watch TV.

Re:Why VR will never work

[WaffleMonster]

Sorry. You cannot code the fix between what the eyes see and the inner ear senses.

There is nothing to "fix" if you simply avoid:

1. Change in speed
2. Change in direction
3. Change in camera orientation not coupled to real world HMD movement

By far biggest vomit inducing mistake I see in VR software are non-teleport movement systems where direction of movement is continuously coupled with camera orientation.

If you really need to violate any of the three rules above apply the change abruptly and offer options to reduce FOV or blank out the display for the duration of the violation so n00bs don't get sick.

Re:Why VR will never work

[HornWumpus]

No.

You can change speed and direction, so long as you moderate the rates and maintain a fixed cockpit or other reference within which the camera movement is the headset.

Car sims are one of the better genres for VR. But even there, content is key, short ovals and rapid switchback courses are pukey.

Same is true for flight sims. Fixed frame of ref, within which the only movement is the headset, then limited rates plus flying style.

Space sims blow the whole coordinated turn illusion, for me they are typically worse than flight sims. But Elite is OK. It really is down to content.

Why VR isn't taking off

[nehumanuscrede]

It has nothing to do with the inability to get folks off their smartphones and has everything to do with the following:

1) Hardware is expensive, bulky and requires fairly high end PC and / or specialized hardware just to run it
2) Resolution within the headset is sub-par at best. Picture doesn't even come close to what a mediocre monitor can do.
3) Developers are hesitant to go all in on VR because it's a niche platform with a limited audience atm and game development is damned expensive.
4) Exclusivity bullshit. Quit making exclusives for Playstation VR, Vive, Occulus, etc. You want cross-platform if you want this to survive.
5) Some folks can handle the motion without getting sick. Many cannot.

IF it survives its second coming, VR might be worthy of attention a few generations from now when more powerful / refined hardware is there to drive it and the headsets are slimmed down a bit. Drop the price on it and more folks will dabble with it. More folks interested in it means more developers might put some effort into making serious titles for folks to play.

Re:Tried it

[thereitis]

Fair enough. I've got a high end phone - I just expected more. After all, the VR headset is really just a holder for the phone. I understand a Vive/Rift would be better, but this just wasn't even close.

blame someone else

[gravewax]

Ahhh yes, lets do the tried and true approach of blaming something else. Can't possibly be the price of the tech, the limited resolution, the limited games/apps, the problems with headaches, eye strain or nausea. Must be because you are addicted to twitter or facebook.

Facebook on Oculus

[dindi]

Well, maybe now Oculus can have a Facebook icon that can nag you without the option to log out of Messenger.

That did it for me and removed the FB app. The constant nagging that I had to install their messenger, one you cannot log-out from.

On a more serious note: I am hesitant to get a HTC/Oculus because I had (have) a HMZ-T1 and it is very uncomfortable and never in focus.Also a Gear VR that is a bit more comfortable but always out of focus.

One eye just always gets this rainbow pixel sprinkled out-of focus treatment that really tires my eyes.

The other issue is that I play once a week - give or take. And only games that support 3 monitors either team based shooters or racing games. Both benefit a lot more from the super-wide angle the 3 monitors provide.

VR has to have a wider FOV and better optics. When it has it: take my money. Until then I keep my 3 x 1080p .. yes I have a 4k screen (43'' for work), no, I don't care about movies or games on it. 1080p x 3 is better than that too.

Re:How are VR/AR related to social networks?

[Immerman]

Agreed. But is there *currently* any way for a techno-incompetent to do that easily?

Re: Wrong.

[hackwrench]

It doesn't add much beyond traditional first person oriented gaming. I bought VR goggles for my smartphone and it has little coolness factor. What we really need is AR apps... and Cyberman suits.

Re: Wrong.

[hackwrench]

I'm a 40-year old on disability, you insensitive clod and FB and Twitter have a place alongside Slashdot and Digg to keep me connected to the world. I am consuming more and more and trying to get my parents out of the 20th century. I am working to get off disability, though. http://hackwrench.tripod.com/ and http://github.com/hackwrench

Re: English, please

[hackwrench]

You can buy VR goggles you slide your cell into, and use the camera to view the outside world and your other screens. Switching back to phone mode is quick and painless. You can even buy all sorts of bluetooth controllers. I prefer ones for each hand that resemble Nintendo nunchuck controllers

Re: How are VR/AR related to social networks?

[hackwrench]

My phone is my VR screen. Yo dawg, I like phones, so I put a phone in my phone so I could...

Re:Wrong.

[KingBenny]

lol ... i never even considered it so far ... not only b/c of my "limited" budget but b/c things like this tend to end up in the attics of rich power-users (i used to live in different times, i even bought an atari jaguar in better days so i know how it works lol) , like 3dtv and smartwatches i guess ... the content doesn't warrant the price and i still have to see some decent research on the impact it has on the eyes, i mean being bombarded with whatever radiation emanates from the screen that close for prolongued periods of time ??!?
call me skepticat ... if i had besos-money, id get one ... well if i had besos-money id get many things, including a driver with a car , but even then ... i don't see how a vr-headset can be very healthy ... i mean even in "normal" games or entertainment its is generally advised to take one break at least 10 minutes every hour, so what if the screen is glued to your eyes at about 1cm away ?
je ne sais pas and like i said, b/c it doesn't lift off might be the reason why no decent research on the matter exists, but that might also have to do with the united lobbies who could care less bien sur
on very, disait l'aveugle as they say in roughly translated flemish