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?"
There are "always a few" who shrug their shoulders and say "so what is the use-case for this anyway?"
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.
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?
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.
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.
Honestly, either way, I think this is not going to test well with real people.
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.
There's a difference between thinking something is cool and thinking something is cool enough to own.