Have you seen any Tilt Brush videos? That alone seems like a compelling-enough application to make VR a mainstay for years to come.
Thats a very niche purpose though, everybody can't draw.Have you seen any Tilt Brush videos? That alone seems like a compelling-enough application to make VR a mainstay for years to come.
Well even if it only lets you play an immersive board game with family and friends abroad, isn't that something? It's still a video game, and that will increase comfort and open up new gaming genres that are better suited to VR. No telling what's in store because we're really at the Pong stage of the medium.
Thats a very niche purpose though, everybody can't draw.
If families are putting on headsets to play a board game and not look at each other and communicate I think that would be a fairly dysfunctional family. Though you are right it is very early and I may be way wrong, I just cannot see it working with the headset/mask.
There's no reason to think AR/MR couldn't provide VR experiences eventually.
Well even if it only lets you play an immersive board game with family and friends abroad, isn't that something? It's still a video game, and that will increase comfort and open up new gaming genres that are better suited to VR. No telling what's in store because we're really at the Pong stage of the medium.
You missed that I said abroad.
It wouldn't be AR then. I think that what you mean is that the headsets that currently do AR may offer VR eventually, and they may, but, if/when they do that, they'll be embracing and promoting VR, not sinking it.
That's one thing that headsets will never do. They will always be less comfortable (significantly less so early on) than wearing nothing at all. That's one of the challenges and could be a prime reason why headsets don't take off. It's why 3D TVs haven't taken off as hoped. People consume their entertainment at home because they want to do so as comfortably as possible, and wearing 3D glasses goes against that. Belamorte has a point that, once the novelty wears off, people may ultimately decide that they're OK with a less immersive experience that's more comfortable (ex. put their money into buying larger and better monitors, rather than headsets).
I mean the things like online boardgames with friends and family will get people comfortable with VR, not that VR will be more comfortable in real life (though that's certainly true, as I'm sure there'll be settings to let you not see people staring at you or invading your personal space).
I think the amount of people writing off the format before even trying the most compelling applications is amusing, even though they're just scratching the surface of where it's going. Eye tracking, in particular will likely be a game changer and create brand new genres that skeptics can't possibly even consider yet. Hell, existing genres like RTSs could have a renaissance once we're interacting with them just by looking around.
It could obviously all be a massive flop, but the relatively weak tech demos are already so impressive, and the barrier to entry will plummet this year with PSVR and only continue to fall.
I get where you are going with that argument. But, do you really see your parents/siblings strapping on a headset to play a board game or visit?
(not only do they need a powerful computer to run it, set it up in an area and the cost)?
I am mid 40's and perhaps out of it, but I could never see friends or family spending what it cost (yes that will come down I know), when you have things like Facetime to do that same thing and are not so... complicated is the best word I can think of.
To interact with my daughter? Absolutely.
I think that most people are fine with interacting remotely simply via voice/video conversation (i.e. phone calls and Skype/Facetime). Our parents, especially, are from a generation that values simply talking to one another, rather than engaging in activities, especially using technology that they're not comfortable with. Right now, they have the ability to interact with their grandchildren by playing online games with them, but do they or do they prefer to simply call and talk to them, instead?
I'm with Belamorte in just not seeing board games being a big thing with VR or even an entry point activity. You can already play online board games to interact with family and friends remotely, but who does that and why would VR change that? I think that most people would pass on that and save the board games for when everyone is together in person and it's a "real" social activity. That doesn't mean that, in the distant future, we won't be doing something similar to what you describe, but I don't see that happening soon and not when you have to strap on a bulky headset.
They're fine with video chat just like they were fine with long distance phone calls, which they were fine with just like they were fine with sending letters through the mail. Each step brings us closer to sharing a physical space, and you're high if you don't think grandparents want to share a physical space with their grandkids. If VR brings them closer to it, they'll do it. The technical and financial barriers to entry are higher right now than they'll be soon soon enough.
RoadDoggFL said:And I only used board games as an example of a simple interaction that is much more enjoyable in person, which VR will be able to better simulate than any other technology currently available.
RoadDoggFL said:If you want to dissect and distort every aspect of that suggestion feel free, but I'll be digging this thread up down the line and you'll brush it off as "oh well, lol."
If you want to see Oculus Rift in action, iracing is supporting it.
I think that they're fine with video chat because it's a natural extension of phone calls and still conversation for conversation's sake. Gaming is a very different activity. Everyone appreciates conversations; not everyone appreciates playing games, especially online. Some folks may choose to VR game with their grandkids, but I just don't see that being commonplace any time soon or the thing that gets people comfortable with VR. Eventually, it probably will be commonplace and we'll VR game with our grandkids, but that'll be a ways off and after (if) VR has already established and cemented itself, IMO.
I understand that it was just an example. I just disagreed with that particular example. It seems that you're taking offense to it and taking it as nitpicking, but I see having a difference of opinion as constructive to keeping discussion (and this thread) going.
I don't see how you can read what I wrote and interpret that as "dissect[ing] and distort[ing] every aspect" of your suggestion. I simply politely and respectfully disagreed with you. That's nothing that I need ever be ashamed of even if I eventually end up being wrong.
Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail. VR home videos will be another great application, but capture is currently limited to 360 video, so the VR experience probably isn't terribly compelling yet.
I only threw it out there as an approachable activity that will break down the psychological barrier that "VR isn't for me," because instead of riding a roller coaster jumping over a volcano or dodging a T-Rex as it tries to eat you, you're sitting at the table with your grandkids playing a game of checkers. Once that barrier is gone, other experiences that might not have been enough to make them think "I can do that" are suddenly interesting.
Instead, you want to argue that nobody wants to play with family because they have webcams. Yes, it's completely distorting the entire point I was making.
First of all, I don't see how opining that people will prefer more conventional interaction methods equals "distorting [your] entire point." What does one have to do with the other?
Secondly, you just said, "Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail"? If you grossly distorting my point is your proof of me distorting yours, then who's really the one doing it?
I actually understand your point/example perfectly well, and have all along. I just have a small disagreement with it, but, instead of just accepting that (with or without debating it), it seems that your idea of standing by your argument is to insist that I just don't understand it or that I'm distorting it. You just gave an example and I just had a bit of disagreement with that particular example; that's all. You don't need to get defensive and argue back that "it's just an example." I know that it's an example. Don't read more into it than that. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with your general point that improving simple activities will help make VR mainstream. We may just disagree on which activities those are. You may perceive it as nitpicking, but it's an excuse to have something to debate and keep a discussion on an interesting topic like this alive.
-I do not care for the exclusivity of the Oculus shop. But, I understand that Oculus is paying devs to develop software for it, so they do have that right to demand exclusivity for it...
Amazing.
Can this just be a general VR thread now? Anyway, here's a great example of why VR's killer apps won't necessarily be what gets people to try it. Relaxing on a beach instead of spending another day in a nursing home opens the door, and who knows what compelling experience actually ends up being the one that shows the potential of the medium.
Its starting to seem like big time AAA games will not become huge on VR, even with PSVR making it relatively more affordable at (from what I've heard) decent quality, it seems like motion sickness is a real problem for action or driving games. Supposedly Vive is a bit better with its requirement to stand up and move around but it doesn't look like theyre going to solve that problem at the very least not this generation.
To be honest the future of VR in my mind is movies, art/drawing, and maybe concerts
For videogames, I can see on rail shooters making a big comeback on it.