Virtual reality flopped in the 1990s – This time it’s different, apparently | Hacker News Reader

Virtual reality flopped in the 1990s – This time it’s different, apparently

economist.com

24 pointsphodo49 comments

It may flop in the mass market, but as one who has had 18 hour goggle sessions in elite, there is a market, it may just be more niche for the time being than vr firms are betting on.

So - I don't think it will ultimately flop, but it may be a slower start than the hype hopes for.

can't wait for VRML to come back. It was included in browsers back then.

It's always great to remember that we had realtime chat and 3d worlds running in the browser in 1997, http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/fullbook/chch/ch1f.... ... on systems with 0.1% the ram, 0.05% the disk space on 0.2% the bandwidth of our modern systems.

Which browser included VRML support? I just remember the plugins.

Edit: It was Netscape - http://docs.tpu.ru/docs/html/html32/ch28.htm#NetscapesLive3D

netscape struck a deal with SGI in the day. Here's the press release of the shipment: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cosmo-player-ships-a...

And here's the press release of the deal: https://books.google.com/books?id=aToEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA...

for IE: "Microsoft integrated the Intervista VRML 2.0 viewer in Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer 4.0." http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/microsoft-releases-v...

edit: I can't find an actual build with it. I did find a version bundled with AIM, WinAmp, RealPlayer G2, and PalmPilot utilities though. Here's the glory screen shot, in an appropriately old window manager http://i.imgur.com/nacQMCX.png

The problem last time around is always put down to bandwidth and the need to download plugins. But actually I thought content was the larger problem. I actually bought and paid for CosmoWorlds and I still rate it up there as 'best software ever'. The problem with it was that nobody was using it, the learning curve wasn't being taken by that many people. I found myself 'the only one' using VRML properly, as in proper lighting, an environment that you could explore rather than 'an odd shape you could inspect'.

I expect that games will be important to 3D #2, but still, it will be the 'unwillingness of people to learn the new tools' and imagination that will dampen whatever we do with it.

A counterargument: http://blog.codinghorror.com/i-tried-vr-and-it-was-just-ok/

TDLR; it seems as though people are excited about VR being exciting, instead of being excited about VR itself.

In actual real-world user tests, I've found that 95-95% of people say "Holy OMFG this is one of the coolest things I have EVER SEEN!!!1"

There are "always a few" who shrug their shoulders and say "so what is the use-case for this anyway?"

We developed a piece of software for use at a pharmaceutical trade show and had nearly 1000 people use it over three days.

This was exactly our experience. There was certainly a 10% who were absolutely blown away and we almost had to rip the headset off them after 20 minutes. Around 80% who were quite amazed and engrossed in the whole thing and certainly a 5 to 10% who were just meh, or felt a bit queasy very early on.

We deliberately programmed in an early section that would separate out people likely to feel sick early on. Our thought here was to get them out early on, rather than let sickness creep up on them.

I think the 5 to 10% will shrink quite quickly with new hardware. We couldn't calibrate IPD for everyone - new headsets make this much quicker and easier to do. Reduced latency, etc. is all going to help here as well.

Its almost a given that a tech gizmo gathers healthy interest today. The real question is whether the general population want to integrate it into their life when the novelty wears off.

Do you you have any reason to think your experience differs from say, doing a trade show with force-feedback sticks in 2000, wiimotes in 2006 or kinect in 2011?

That's a very good question and one I may struggle to answer properly.

I think with the other technologies there was always a feeling of using technology for the sake of technology. My experience with VR was that once somebody put the headset and noise cancelling headphones on, they were immersed. That is, they couldn't talk to a friend, fiddle with their phone or anything else that would distract them. Seeing people move their head for the first time and look shocked/awed that there was a feeling of presence is like nothing I saw with the other technologies listed. People would say "oh that's neat" or "that's cool". With VR, some people take the headset off and just sit there in a kind of daze at what they've just experienced. Seeing people try and reach out and touch stuff is always funny as well.

Funnily enough, the three technologies you list I see being used in conjunction with VR in some form or another as it grows - Valve's lighthouse tech is broadly similar to Kinect, the new Oculus/Steam controllers are somewhat in-line with Wiimote technology. It's starting to feel like all of the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to align for the very first time.

The real challenge to make the technology shine is going to be content creators adapting their thought processes to a new medium. They won't be able to apply the tricks that grew up out of cinema. The toolbox needs rebuilding. I'm eagerly awaiting trying what Oculus have been doing in this area with their Story Studio.

I am a VR user who finds the experience magical and incredible.

But I can't see it becoming a mainstream interaction device. It may be an amazing experience, but as long as it involves strapping something to your face it is immediately too much work to use.

I have a friend who is writing VR software for a major fast food restaurant chain, so they can arrange everything they want in VR and walk around the restaurant before it's even built. Huge contract I've heard.

So, is it BYO headset or is it supplied?

Honestly, either way, I think this is not going to test well with real people.

Latest occulus + UE4 I think. Apparently the people actually in charge of the restaurant style and design at that chain like it very much, but obviously I can only take my friend's word for it.

> There are "always a few" who shrug their shoulders and say "so what is the use-case for this anyway?"

Interesting point. I personally have no opinion as I haven't yet used one of the devices; which will stay that way until we see a decrease in cost. As it stands, evaluating the devices in any regard is unfair as both the technology itself and the games that support it are still working out many kinks.

Just thought Jeff's post was an interesting counterbalance to the VR hype sphere - although it may be somewhat unwarranted due to the aforementioned immaturity of the technology.

That's the case with a LOT of things. Time will tell if that 90-95% will plunk down the cash to actually OWN a device.

There's a difference between thinking something is cool and thinking something is cool enough to own.

Maybe a different question need to be asked - people who bought VR headset - how do they feel after months of ownership ?

To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.

You could criticize computers in the 90's the same way. Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing.

In my opinion it is an opportunity comparable to the beginning of internet. You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties that will obviously be fixed in the next 2-5 years, and ignore the magnitude of what VR has to offer.

> To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.

All I am doing is providing an opposing thoughts about VR, because much of the media about VR is overly hyped. Jeff's outlook on the technology is 100% true for him and people who agree with him.

Much of the hype around VR is overly positive and unrealistic.

> Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's immune to ending in a complete flop. See: "hype."

> You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties

If nobody criticizes the shortcomings of the technology then those shortcomings suffer from lower prioritization. Positive perspectives on technology (fandom, hype) are nearly worthless and merely drive the hype machine. Negative perspectives drive the technology to a more viable place.

Jeff's musings are important milestones that virtually everyone would agree with as critical goals (that currently limit the viability of the technology), if only many weren't completely blinded by hype and zealous fandom.

Information such as Jeff's is important for people who want to make informed decisions about forking out $400 for the tech right now.

That is why I specifically said:

Counterargument

Biggest issue - It takes work to use. People are lazy, standing and moving is not fun.

One of the reasons the minority report interface sucks. It's way to much effort to use compared to a mouse.

But it'll take off thanks to the internet, it allows a lot of old tech to start working, just it'll be narrower than people think.

Technically you can just swivel chair and a gamepad. That could be enough for like 80% of use cases.

You can watch tv in a virtual theater from a couch, you can observe 360 videos/panoramas and play most of the games from swivel chair.

I played with the Oculus for about 1.25 hours while drunk, and felt sick for about 20 minutes afterwards.

My guess:

When good headsets hit with 4k and ~20ms latency (2017?), with great cross platform support (2018?), at a reasonable pricepoint, comfort level and UX (2019)? we will all be using them to code.

In a few years when you are pair programming with someone remotely, I'd be surprised if you didn't point to line 12 with your hand.

Kind of like here in the Post PC world where we are all coding on tablets while sitting on the beach.

Sorry, but no. I just don't see this happening. People don't want things on their face for that long. Even eyeglasses bug me and I've been wearing them most my life.

But how good is it for people with glasses? I wear headphones (around the ear) because it seems to help me focus. It DOES cause pain no matter which pair of glasses I wear. So every hour I have to remove the headphones. All the while I'm fiddling with my headphones. Even now I'm keenly aware of the developing pain.

I can't see myself have a similar issue with my vision.

This vision doesn't seem to hold any improvements for me over a VNC session and a webcam.

personal anecdote:

- the resolution on the Oculus DK2 is painfully low -- it's like sticking your face 1 inch from a 640x400 CRT monitor. This made me car-sick after a few minutes.

- the sense of "presence" and natural neck movement is very good and it feels natural.

- the notion of a headset is a bit clunky but i don't know of a better solution.

A handful of games developers I know that have used Oculus Rift complained of sickness after 20 minutes or so. Apparently it's better with recent revisions of the hardware, but to put it in perspective the prior revision had one chap needing to lie down in a dark room he felt so awful!

I played Valkyrie on the DK1, it was awful, I felt sick for about two hours afterwards.

I played it on the DK2 about a year later. I felt a slight twinge, especially when the head-tracking hitched, but afterwards I felt fine.

Also played a racing game on the DK2 around the same time with no ill effect. I think the head-tracking really helps here.

When my mate finally got in DK1(and we finally got HL2 working with it) I found the load a terrible user experience. Going from head tracking and immersion to a sudden frozen image that is fixed in your view while your head moves.. Crazy vertigo. I didn't really get sick from it, but it definitely was not the most fun I have had playing a game.

These things will get sorted out relatively quickly though I imagine.

I imagine that's the kind of thing that can be solved with more design experience - some kind of low-computing-load "loading room" that at least gives you control of the camera, for example.

I had that a few years ago with an earlier red-blue 3d system, and it was terrible for 20-30 minutes. I had to lie down.

It's also known as "Doom-Induced Motion Sickness" or DIMS. (1)

Motion sickness in a car or boat is caused by a conflict - the inner ear says "you're moving" and the eyes say "you're at rest".

With a game, this is reversed - the eyes say "you're moving" and the inner ear says "nope!". This was worse, or at least unfamiliar in a bad way.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/19/video-ga...

http://kotaku.com/5869607/how-motion-sickness-can-ruin-games...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.254333-Doom-ma...

This effect goes back way before FPS video games.

Eg, I got this badly as a kid in the early 80's at Disney World, in the O Canada! Circle-Vision 360° theatre. Within seconds of starting the movie, I felt the whole room moving around and I nearly hurled. Luckily since the room is stationary I just sat down with my eyes closed for the rest of the film and recovered pretty quickly afterwards.

Many shortcuts that we normally get away with when looking at 3D on a screen become really jarring in VR. The following article lists a few interesting ones that are often forgotten, such as shading:

http://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be-sexis...

Ignore the clickbaity title, the article has good info.

> one chap needing to lie down in a dark room

Sounds like the standard reaction. The real horror stories are about people who are wasted for days after trying Oculus Rift.

I just don't think putting screens in front of a person's eyes is going to be the solution for VR.

The technology needs more direct access to our biology to truly deliver on the expectations it creates.

Can a patch on the skin induce currents in the nerves below the skin?

Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPNXUfOkt2A

You would probably want more fidelity, though.

It's a step in the right direction, but I personally don't think the tech is there yet - just look at the millions that go into creating 3d games for a 2d surface, how does that scale to 360deg of motion?

Additionally, you have M$ marketing campaign which does videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA (even though it's AR, the point still stands that VR/AR are being marketed as more than they actually are).

I don't understand the question. You've already got a 3D environment, all you have to do is implement camera control for the headset. For simulation games where the user is stationary (planes, cars) you can pretty much stop there.

Other games will need to be designed with VR in mind, but it's not going to balloon art budgets or anything. On the contrary, what a lot of developers find is that they can get away with less sophisticated graphics while maintaining a sense of presence. See Superhot for a good example.

https://superhotgame.com/

Yes you have a 3d world, but now everything in it needs to be interact able. Knock your fist against a wall for example, it makes subtlety different noises everytime - how do you program for that? Everything in the environment should have physics too. In a survival game if I pick up cello-tape and a gun and flashlight I'd expect to be able to attach it all together myself with my hands.

All this stuff you can hide behind a button press on a gamepad+tv, but in VR it's so much more jarring when the world you are walking around can only be somewhat interacted with - the techniques we use to fake stuff today just don't stand up when you can look at them from a mm away. The idea of VR+gamepad just doesn't make sense to me - If I can't see/control my hands/feet as I'd expect then all these reports of VR induced sickness come as no surprise.

Good point. I thought you were just referring to graphics, but yeah, the bar for interaction is definitely going to go up once our hands are involved.

I disagree.

(1) The millions that go into creating 3d games for 2d surfaces are often going for things that may not matter for VR. Much of the push in AAA titles have been towards photorealism. Photorealism is not necessary to induce presence.

(2) With presence, VR content will not necessarily be about games, it will be about experiences, of which games are a small subset. It's a different medium.

(3) The current trend towards violent games won't work. With a sufficient level of presence, the current edge of VR technology will induce an existential crises. It doesn't work for everyone (yet), but we've never had something that closed enough of the uncanny valley gap until this generation. When I heard that it induces an existential crises, I knew this is the real deal.

Graphics in modern 3d games are completely faked, and it works because they can control the view medium (the tv - a 2d window). When you can walk around the world though in VR would you not expect to be able to kick objects around, move lights, lock doors, break tables to use the pieces as weapons? Instead you still have the same game as on the tv where all that stuff is off limits, resulting in this weird in-between-fake-and-real-world-simulation which is jarring to play.

I didn't find it jarring at all. It's a game with a cooler screen, I don't expect a holodeck.

Same here, I played Half Life 2 in VR and found it incredibly captivating and engrossing. It doesn't need to simulate reality to a T to be enjoyable.

You're confusing realism for presence. Realism is not necessary for presence.

I'm using the conventional notion of realism: that set of coventions, idioms, beliefs, habitual expectation that form your set of what is "real". This is easy to test -- if you were to go to another country with a very different culture, some things will jar you out of your expectations. Other things like catastrophic natural disasters tends to shock people into paralysis because the thing going through their mind is "this isn't real". You see a tsunami coming your way, it's real enough, but because you haven't experienced it, you might spent some time wondering if this was "real".

Presence, on the other hand, is the experience of being embodied within a space, whether that space is tangible or not. It is quite possible to have presence within an artificial space whose laws of physics do not resemble anything that you expect. Presence is typically attained when the uncanny valley is crossed. In other words, it's the brain that needs convincing for the presence, not your expectations on what "realism" is.

If you are finding unrealistic elements are jarring, that's more likely that the tech has not crossed the uncanny valley for you. There's a strong case that the current generation of VR tech works well for men, but probably not women, due to physiological differences in neurology.

However, if the VR experience has presence, but things don't operate the way you expect, that leads to a different experience: an existential crises.

I'm looking forward to where this is going. Our civilization needs this tech badly, to help break us out of conventionality and closed-mindedness. Some of the most interesting project includes a VR sim of being in a warzone as a bystander ... to develop empathy for people elsewhere. That's something the current social networks don't foster. We still have difficulty seeing things from someone else's point of view.

If the world wide web brought information closer together, the mainstream adoption of VR can potentially bring people together. And that's a big deal.

Nothing about VR Cinema?

Shameless self promotion: http://www.Sphericam.com is the ONLY spherical camera with 4K resolution and 60FPS, providing the nateve resolution needed for VR cinema in today's and next year's VR headsets. We are now taking preorders after raising nearly half a million dollars on Kickstarter in july.

RTFA

"That the new generation of VR’s first software products will mostly be games, then, seems in little doubt. But the industry’s boosters point out that it could have plenty of other uses as well. One is film. All of the proposed headsets will come with cinema apps that put the user inside a virtual picture palace with an ordinary flat screen. But immersive films that place the viewer at the centre of the action, and which are made with special panoramic cameras, are possible too. One, called “Clouds over Sidra”, which chronicles life inside a refugee camp in Jordan, has already proved a hit online."

No, it's still going to flop. The kind of people that think VR is a good idea also thought Ouya is a good idea, so yah, it's doomed.

Didn't personal injury lawsuit concerns kill VR back in the 90's?

And then there's the limited field-of-view..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com