I'm still skeptical that it is The Next Big Thing.
I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!
I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!
It's an incredible tool and way to engage with virtual worlds, but the question we should be asking isn't "Is VR technology good enough" which I think people get stuck on. Really the question is "Does everyone want to be in a virtual world regularly?" and my intuition having spent a good amount of time in VR is that the answer to that is actually no.
I love video games, so much so that I even try to make them. I spend many hours playing in virtual worlds, but I very, very rarely want to use VR. I'm the perfect candidate for the technology, and it's honestly mindblowing when I do use it, but it's just not a casual experience. Even if we had the perfect, unobtrusive and lightweight technology, you are still choosing to disconnect from your current environment and spend time fully engaged with a different world in a way that games and TV don't. That can be really exhausting.
It isn't really something that people want to do.
Exceptions of course would be to do it with someone remotely, like a friend or a family member -- it is a good way to potentially 'hang out' with people who aren't physically there. But the same caveats apply.
An increasing number of relationships are happening purely remotely. My company went fully remote due to the pandemic and I've started building working relationships, and yes a friendship even, with new employees completely remotely. And I'm a millenial who remembers a distinct separation between the online and offline (and the modem tones lol). (Though I was a very online kid and have made many internet friends over the years.)
Younger relatives of mine don't see as strong a separation and they have friends who they made in primary school that they stayed in touch with despite families moving a long ways away because of how easy remote communication is these days; when I was a kid moving locales meant a new set of friends. It's this demographic and this world that I think is poised to enter VR experiences en masse. Gen X and older Millenials probably still have too strong concepts of "offline" and "online" (and usually prioritize "offline" over "online") to break this barrier down (as you say, a quintessential part of the "offline" experience is snuggling with your dog or an SO) but I'm pretty confident that younger folks won't see this distinction as pronounced. I might be wrong of course.
But they will see it as pronounced because it is pronounced, for all the reasons mentioned.
People love real spaces, real objects, real venues, smells, and atmosphere. The physical characteristics of friends and strangers, from subtle facial cues to outrageous clowning around. In VR, all that is stifled or non-existent; substituted with digitally representation, crafted by unknown processes. Cold origins. Black boxes.
> enter VR experiences en masse
Really? I wouldn't bet on it. The warmth of remote communication you mentioned, is coming from that which we already have. Phones, screens, coffee next to the laptop, simple face to face chats on the screen of your choice. Show me your new house! Cool, walk around carrying phone. Not a VR headset!
Strapping on a headset and embracing rendered distractions while you communicate? I don't see that happening en masse. You'd need to literally get real before VR takes off. Each headset commanding a tiny 360 drone camera, flying wherever you like without incident. See you at Burning Man! From your couch. In this impossible "RR" (remote reality?) future, a typical music festival or live event would have both real people and a bunch of VR drones - somehow inter-mingling, silent without collision, without any issues. Until then, VR is a device strapped to your head, dishing out pre-renders. Your real cat limits the VR experience, and into the bottom drawer goes your headset, right next to the DJI drone you got for Xmas.
> People love real spaces, real objects, real venues, smells, and atmosphere. The physical characteristics of friends and strangers, from subtle facial cues to outrageous clowning around. In VR, all that is stifled or non-existent; substituted with digitally representation, crafted by unknown processes. Cold origins. Black boxes.
This same argument could have been used to argue against the Internet, against using the Web to replace real services (how can you replace the minutiae of human voice interaction with a screen??), against the mobile revolution even. Yet mobile phones are here to stay and even developing countries with bad public infrastructure rely heavily on mobile phones to stay connected. Overly broad philosophical arguments never have explanatory power. I think you can make the argument that the experience of VR would make it too cumbersome to use no matter the streamlining, but to attribute some mystical quality to physical connections neglects the sheer growth of the internet, web, and mobile that are extant.
> See you at Burning Man! From your couch. In this impossible "RR" (remote reality?) future, a typical music festival or live event would have both real people and a bunch of VR drones - somehow inter-mingling, silent without collision, without any issues. Until then, VR is a device strapped to your head, dishing out pre-renders. Your real cat limits the VR experience, and into the bottom drawer goes your headset, right next to the DJI drone you got for Xmas.
It's not like mobile phones took over every aspect of our society. My relatives that kept in touch with their young school friends throughout their lives over mobile phones also as adults meet up with their friends IRL. Friends that met partners while playing WoW live with their partners and have started families with them. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition and suggesting so seems absurd given the prior art we have of digital technologies.
If VR becomes a default way to communicate and collaborate, that's all it will take to "win".
No because we didn't have anything else before the internet other than landline phones, one per household.
In my comment where I said "we already have it", that's the key point. VR is not an incredible shift like mobiles and internet were, and yet your last line flirts with the word "default". Of course it will be popular and clever, and will do well for the special times we want VR by placing a thing on our heads. But like drone cameras, VR will not elbow out the default cameras we already have that work better in most cases.
> but to attribute some mystical quality to physical connections neglects the sheer growth of the internet
Some mystical quality? You say that like "meh, real life"! The internet isn't trying to be "reality", it's just the internet. VR literally has the word reality in its name. Obviously comparisons will be made to actual reality for technologies that use the same word in the name.
> Obviously comparisons will be made to actual reality for technologies that use the same word in the name.
You are getting distracted by a naming convention. If we called VR something else, without the word "reality" those points don't even make any sense.
VR is not a reality replacement. Like all technology it augments reality.
(I hope my intentionally interesting word choice of "augments reality" doesn't distract you from what the sentence means. As with VR, the meanings of words interpreted as a phrase, vs. interpreted individually, often mean related but different things.)
Virtual reality will be judged based on its own use cases. Given the ergonomics of VR hardware and software are rapidly advancing, seemingly compelling new use cases are being identified with interesting beta's and preliminary-shipping demos, and we haven't even seen a platform that delivers seamless navigation or co-navigation across apps (as the web provides for sites), I would say the potential has hardly been tapped.
As it stands a "TV" can be a screen of many different sizes and configurations, it can even be a projected image. VR can't be anything but a headset strapped to our heads. That's the point I was making about it's uptake woes... It's obviously fun and will have plenty of users dipping their toe in, or should I say customers, but "en masse" was the point I was replying to and doubting.
Look at the cambria demos, they’re already doing mixed reality by blending the room with the experience. No reason that can’t be used to put your couch, coffee table and SO in the virtual theatre. You also have to consider that a lot of the younger people using these won’t have dogs or kids to worry about.
I can actually take a drink with the headset on but the bulk does make it odd. But these next gen headsets are much more compact. Check out the vive flow, and then the nvidia prototype holographic displays.
If I live in a small apartment or dorm or just don’t have a tv in my room and want to watch anything then that becomes a better choice than holding my extremely heavy iPhone or iPad very soon.
My issue is specifically that it has great use cases (which we have gone over, like gaming and immersion) and mediocre use cases (like socializing) and poor use cases (like replacing a computer for general and work use).
Big leaps in technology that shifted paradigms have been catalyzed by a killer app (ex. spreadsheets for desktop computing) or have been incredibly obvious (ex. long distance real-time communication for telegraph/phone).
Trying to force a technology onto the larger population without one of these things by only advancing the technology itself is not only a waste of money, but tends to backfire and set the public against it for a non-trivial period of time.
I have able to buy Quest 2s locally for a pittance in 'like new' condition because people get them based on the promise of some general utility and end up realizing they are only great at gaming and media consumption, and a lot of people just don't want to wear a headset for those activities.
Seems like he has no choice. Even if it doesn’t work or we’re all skeptical — he better play along and go for it.
Hearing them describe their own product as “Chromebook for the face” just reconfirms my suspicious that this is a doomed product.
But that's fine for Meta. Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp might all be running out of growth, but they are all big enough that Meta can afford to invest in something that will only pay off in a decade or two, as long as the payoff is big enough. Gaming-VR headsets are just a good way to get the technology into people's hands right now, and iterate on it.
See this demo of Quest Pro pass-through AR: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/xvzxj2/new_footage_...
(My guess is that Unity (& Blender) will have an on-stage demo when the headset comes out. Unity: “just tick this box and your game will run on Reality Pro”)
Meta is in trouble, and it needs to do something to retain relevance. This is something, and Meta is doing it.