Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkaptur | Hacker News Reader

> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet. > > It’s an old saying, sure, maybe even a little cliché. And yes, there are skeptics out there—but we’d argue they just haven’t found the right VR experience to make them a convert []-)

Yep, I'm a skeptic. I tried it, and it was fine! Pretty fun, not that fun. Like going to Disney, I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that it's there, other people love it, and I'll go once every 20 years or so and have a decent time.

Maybe I just haven't had the right experience yet (I went to Epcot, not Star Wars World), but you could argue that about literally anything.

View on HN

I'm actually someone that believed in VR until I tried it, and then I lost interest because I found it so underwhelming. In my opinion it just kinda sucks and certainly isn't worth the awkward inconvenience of strapping something on to your face. I think it even has limited appeal for niche applications like simulations and personally I'd prefer a multiscreen setup.

To each their own. I was someone that was excited to try VR for years and then said "that's it?" when I finally got a chance.

I feel I'm very pro-technology and pro-innovation but most of what tech has been creating recently had been total crap, and I'm tired of the disconnect.

I agree. Videos and vision are powerful but I think most still underestimate the cost of wearing something on your face for more than a few mins.

I see the opposite phenomena after Apple Vision Pro announcement. Many seem to love VR / AR but never tried it. Retention numbers with current tech indicate that cost of wearing a headset exceeds the value proposition for most people and use cases. Maybe Apple Vision Pro will change that. Excited to see.

edit: typos

I think this and the parent comment are partially a driver of Apples response. The current state of the tech is kind of shrug worthy. Might seem like a neat gimmick, might make some games better, might make you motion sick. Essentially a niche product indefinitely.

I think the current market targeting the $200-500 price point is a large part of the problem. If you think about what's needed to make this well vs say, the phone in your pocket, how is a good VR implementation going to come out cheaper than the phone?

Apple is basically throwing the kitchen sink at the space in terms of compute, optics, sensors, and software.. with a price tag to match. If it's going to work, it's probably going to work at that price point first.

That's like taking a $100 Nokia phone in 2002 and saying that mobile phones are nice but will never be important.

If this is suggesting that we should write off VR for now and re-evaluate in 2033, then I can get behind that.

Fine, but you came to a thread on the prototypical future variants of VR hardware. Just don't click if you don't want to read about it.

Just because people are short-sellers doesn't mean they're not interested in the market.

Regardless of the price point (3.5k or some hundreds dollars) it's more like a heavy phone that you have to strap to both your ears. We had ones that had to be strapped to cars and didn't become popular until they were small, light and cheap.

By the way, do people still ride the subway with those large earphones I remember to be fashionable before covid? I moved and I'm not using subways anymore so I'm missing observations.

Ear muff headphones have always been really niche in mobile environments (they’ve been around since the 70s!). Most people prefer lighter alternatives, like ear buds, I personally prefer bone conductive since I don’t like putting things on or in my years. By subway I guess you mean NYC, it could have been a local fad.

and there is a third kind of people:

those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky PR presenting tech demo videos so underwhelming and cliché ("VR bionic hand twiddling fingers" trope) they skip through them, and get reassured that VR providers still haven't managed to bring any sustainable use-case to the market despite this current VR cycle stretching for almost ten years by now.

Sorry Meta, you educated whole generations to have the attention span of a gold fish, why should anyone care for your latest world-changing prototype if the previous four or so haven't fulfilled their announced revolution either?

Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems pretty spot-on given their track record...

> and there is a third kind of people:

> those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky

Additionally there also exists a fourth kind of people: those who planned and would love to do cool experiments (hacks) with the VR devices, but became deeply disappointed by the fact that in particular Meta (but now also Apple) rather decided to turn their devices into golden cages (in the case of Meta with the intention of including surveillance functionality).

Agreed. And nausea is a real problem for many people, which many supporters like to hand-wave away. “Just get your VR legs” is crap.

I think VR will always be niche.

I’m curious if AR is really the thing. The need for bulky stuff like the Vision Pro is a hinderance, but it will get smaller.

The VR/AR difference is kind of a problem as I see so many people arguing past each other on this and the Vision Pro by comparing one company’s position in VR against another’s play in AR as if they weren’t two totally different things.

A lot of older people use VR for fitness (or younger kids just to play beat saber) and belong to none of those groups. They got what they wanted, and are excited to get more of it.

Meta’s biggest problem, however, is getting people interested in VR beyond Beat Saber and the fitness apps. Like actual hardcore gamers.

What does VR let you do that you can’t do with a regular computer or TV? At the moment the answer is “not much” other than entertainment. When that changes and you can convince your grandma who doesn’t use much technology why she needs a VR headset then I think you’ll see mass adoption.

> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.

I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.

VR was interesting, but the Meta Quest felt uncomfortable on my head, I felt every so vaguely nauseous, they didn't add anything to any of the games I was playing, they weren't comfortable to wear after a long day of work, they made me feel weirdly disconnected from the outside world.

"Technology can overcome any obstacles" is just what you tell the investors. Most of the time, obstacles stop emerging technologies from going anywhere.

And I suppose VR may become viable some day, but I just don't feel it's that day yet.

> I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.

Mostly because it's the worst argument a person can make. You know you exist, so therefore they don't know what they're talking about.

In this case, it's basically saying "You have experienced all VR has to offer after you've tried it a few times. If you weren't impressed, I'm here to inform you that you won't ever be."

> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet

Damn, I feel like they stole that quote from me. I used to (and still do) say that all the time!

I'll still argue that people here who don't believe in VR have either never tried it, or tried an old prototype. Owning a VR headset and being able to use it in your living room is future-like. Definitely an experience that people should try to have, that is if you want to live in the future.

I was very excited about VR, owned rift dk2 and cv1, my roommate has valve index which I've played with. still very strongly meh.

I get sick very easily, even with traditional screens in some FPS games. VR people seem to live in a bubble and plug their ears every time somebody says VR sucks. sorry, it mainly sucks. headsets are heavy, wires tangle, graphics cards are expensive, cameras or projectors are tedious, resolution isn't good enough, rooms are never big enough or clean enough, a guest broke our window by accident, god I could go on with all the drawbacks.

Since you brought up Disney, the newer immersive rides at amusement parks (more Universal Studios, but Disney is following suit) are really cool. Most don’t use headsets yet, but they’ll use a screen maybe with 3D glasses, coupled with some sort of pivoting but stationary car. Sometimes it is rumbling or a bit of environmental feedback, whatever. Even with a 360 imax, the environmental manipulation solidifies the experience as being hyper-real.

I wonder if for consumer VR, we are really missing similar environmental manipulation. Like, maybe a lazy boy seat or something that can move?

I think it's like artificial flavors. Yeah, it's cool we can make something that tastes kinda like reality. But invariable the real thing is better.

Writing custom engines for VR makes too hard, and only custom will have the performance to avoid nausea.

Add to that closed platforms and no diopter adjustable non-fresnel lenses, and it's over.

Valve demonstrated why VR will fail, only a monopolistic company can succeed with it in a zero interest rate environement.

I was hoping Roblox on Quest 2 would be 120 Hz and smooth 3rd person but they failed.

RIP VR!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com