Hacker News Reader

Comment by whysonot | Hacker News Reader

> When Iribe said, Yeah, it’s pretty much just about gaming, at least for now, Zuckerberg seemed to lose interest. Facebook was not a video-game company and over the years had moved to make games a smaller part of what users saw when they logged on.

I've seen Mark's vision for Oculus described as the next step in connecting all of the people on the planet in a few pieces now. What interests me about this position is that it implies:

1) gaming and entertainment braodly are not the end game. Instead, the social interactions.

2) VR hardware will see broader consumer penetration in the population not yet reached by facebook than mobile phones

Not sure what I think yet.

View on HN

My bet is FB's end game with VR only starts to be realized once hardware is much smaller, much cheaper, performs better, and is ubiquitous.

Imagine how kids are glued to their cell phones today. Not I true a slim, always on VR/augmented reality device that allows them to connect with their friends virtually. Add cameras and mics for shared experiences and streaming their lives and it is clear this is in its infancy.

"Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge starts to get into this a bit and provides great insight there. Functional "telepathy" seems almost reachable with how fast this has moved.

I don't see it happening. There's no way people are going to be strapping things to their faces for social interaction.

I agree. Many people (30% apparently) prefer text messages over voice calls. I don't see 360° VR video being convenient or worth the bother for casual communication.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/tech/mobile/americans-prefer-t...

Our home use has really diverged away from voice calls and towards messaging and FaceTime. Where FaceTime is reserved for special occasions (kids chatting to grandparents, long distance relatives, calling home when on a business trip).

I wonder if VR as a communication tool could supplant video calling? Although it lacks the ability for a family to physically gather around a screen and communicate as a group.

Hard to see how that broad penetration jibes with a $1500 price tag (if the story is correct).

The $1500 figure from the article seems to include the PC that drives the Oculus.

You have to include that in the price though. Most people don't have pc's capable of running it as very low %'s of people need a 980+. And that performance curve is likely to stay there for quite a few years as people try to eek more and more out of it, so I think it'll mirror game requirements.

I would also ask, what's the market penetration of a $600 smart phone that you can take everywhere and do tons and tons of useful things with? No where near facebook's total penetration. Sure they're becoming more and more ubiquitus but remember that most people don't have a need for a upper end gaming pc and convincing them that they have to have it so they can virtual-skype with their friends from only one room in their house makes it seem a lot like the original telephone for quite a while. Expensive, and tied to a single place.

Don't get me wrong, it's SUPER COOL to demo (I went onsite at valve).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com