Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

LOL. I lived through the first VR hype bubble, and it's pretty remarkable how similar this is to my recollection of VR back then -- the only difference is that at the time, the goofy, uncomfortable headset was tethered to a refrigerator-sized SGI machine at the science museum, and there was no hope of getting it at home. Instead, we got the Lawnmower Man on VHS.

It sounds like technology has advanced enough that we have finally miniaturized the underwhelming user experience for the home viewer, but we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it. Plus ça change...maybe soon we'll get to see investors salivating over "multimedia experiences" delivered via some futuristic version of CD-ROM!

View on HN

I was previously getting my PhD in VR (I dropped out to start a company) and I can't believe the hype around a HMD, like it's a new revolutionary thing. I do own an Oculus as I love VR and I am a proud UMD alum but generalized VR is so far off, immersion is way too difficult to completely generalize. I do think that there has been enough significant improvements from the first VR hype bubble that there could be a serious specialized VR arcade where the application is very well understood and you can build real immersion into the product. For example a fighting robot MOBA where you can control the haptic feedback and the player's surroundings match the virtual world (cockpit is real compounded with stereoscopic screens for windows)

So true! People looking at something and finding it "mindblowing" for short periods says almost nothing about whether a) there is actual value delivered, or b) there's a real business to be built there.

I can count at least 5 waves of 3D hype going back to the 1850s. Stereoscopic photos were all the rage for brief periods starting with the 1851 World's Fair in London [1], and we are all familiar with the 3D View Master, which was developed in 1939. There was the anaglyph 3D [2] wave in the 1950s, and as the marketing suggests, the main audience appeal was novelty. [3] Next came, as you say, the VR wave of the 1990s, including predictions of "affordable VR by 1994". [4] We next have this decade's rise and fall of 3D movies, with a related rise and fall of 3D TV.

So far, history suggests that this is just another wave of novelty. 3D pictures did not replace pictures. 3D movies and TV did not replace movies and TV. The evidence is equally strong that many otherwise smart people can combine "cool novelty effect" plus "OMG future" and to end up fooling themselves.

Sure, it could be different this time. But I suspect that 3D will end up, for at least the 6th time, as being about as appealing as Smell-o-Vision. [5] This is in strong contrast to color and sound, which started out being optional and became mandatory both for movies and computers. Wake me up, I say, when we get to showing movies in "Feel Around". [6]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_%281953_film%29#/... [4] http://i.imgur.com/j73ipNp.jpg which is from http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjm_zmBoxjw#t=2m20s [7] and dang, when will we get some hypertext here?

> we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it

For the most of the games that are developed today with first-person view in mind, adding support for VR isn't something that is very hard to add. And these games are already pretty compelling.

The only question is convenience. The post mentioned 3d in televisions — but 3d did win in cinemas. I recently wanted to watch Inside Out in 2d (I get dizzy from 3d), and I couldn't it, although it was just released into the theaters. Only in 3d.

> but 3d did win in cinemas

lolwut?

But does VR make existing 3D games better? Better enough to wear the bulky headset? I think that is yet to be seen.

First person games as they exist today don't transfer well to VR. The issue is the locomotion problem: Moving the player in the virtual world but not the real world causes motion sickness, since they're not getting a matching input to their vestibular system. Oculus' system today is suited more for cockpit games or 3rd person games with gentle camera movement. Valve are also targetting room sized first person experiences, where the user has enough physical space that the play area can be mapped 1:1.

Cockpit simulators have a leg up in this department - not much movement expected in driving / flying / spaceships.

Not really. In the real world, you still moving and thus feeling acceleration. Problem therefore still exists.

It is for this reason that I think that the first successful iteration of VR tech will be experienced in next generation video game arcades. That will solve both the cost problem and the space problem. You'll plan in a very big (100x100ft) room where everything physical is wrapped with three inches of foam. Things you climb on will have level drops of no more than four feet, but with a total height of perhaps twenty feet. Of course what you "see" through your helmet goggles won't be grey foam.

Will be a great place to play.

Do I really have to be the one to say it. .. the four (or more) letter word starting with "p"?

Heh. That's an area where quality input devices become even more essential, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com