Hacker News Reader

Comment by BLKNSLVR | Hacker News Reader

The "Neon" demo displayed the horribly limiting nature of the device. The AR aspect is great, but to have to see it through the lens of the device and to have to occupy both hands to interact whilst full-bodily moving around the space makes it seem quite "cacky" (I can't explain what I mean by cacky, but it sounds like what I mean).

It's like playing a shooter game in the real world, but having to have the device pointing in the right direction in order to see what's actually there. Like using a torch in pitch blackness (Doom 3). This is where a Google Glass / VR-style headgear kind of interface would be perfect.

But since this is all just in "tech demo" stage, I'm probably being too critical. It is "cool".

Tertiary worry: AR advertising.

View on HN

People have some interesting presumptions about AR/VR:

- participants will predominantly look around in 360 degrees

- participants will be manipulating the objects they’re seeing projected in 3D

- participants will have prolonged engagements with virtual objects

- all people present in the room will also be interacting with the same virtual objects

If these are all true then your analysis is correct: headsets are the only way.

If all of these presumptions are at least somewhat false then handheld “opera glasses”-style AR experiences will be very popular.

Personally, I think even people who have headsets and spend a lot of time in VR will also use handheld displays, for transient use and when others are present.

> it seem quite "cacky" (I can't explain what I mean by cacky, but it sounds like what I mean).

From cack-handed (inept; clumsy)?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cack-handed

It's building the communications infrastructure you need for glasses to "just work."

You can't just come out with glasses because there is too much you don't know about how multi-user and persistent content AR interface and communications work from a standing start.

My comment was based on my reaction to how unexpectedly badly the handling of the device fitted into the activity, and how obvious it was that a different interaction device was necessary.

And yes, I think Niantic are more of a technology / platform company than they are a game developer, and I think that's the level of their involvement in the Wizards Unite game.

Google "just came out with glasses", but that didn't go very well, probably for the reasons you gave. Google Glass time may be upon us again soon, however, given these tech demos.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you and explaining why the big companies are making such huge investments in this when the form factor and use case is still not refined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com