As I see it, the only absolute upper limit for VR is the resolution and frame rate of the VR headset displays, as well as the quality of the optical stack. Rendering of the graphics can be done by anything from a single high-end GPU in a PC up to a beefy server in the cloud—although in that case, of course, network latency and video compression will impact the experience.
unless it’s a niche thing (simulation, high end gaming), the future is undoubtedly free headsets like the Quest 3 and Apple Vision- for convenience in handling and setup, conformity and freedom of use.
VR needs to at least match the bleeding edge in graphics, which is desktop GPUs. Those desktop GPUs have large wattage and cooling demands. Therefore wireless VR headsets must use the mobile or laptop versions of those GPUs, which perform worse than the desktop equivalent. On top of this VR needs to draw the same scene twice (one for each eyeball). I cannot see how VR will ever overcome this with current hardware. They need to be able to put a desktop GPU in the wireless headset without needing to power it from AC, and thats just for starters because didnt Carmack say we need something like 240hz and 4k+ (for each eyeball) for indiscernible photo realism? Id say were maybe 10-20 years away from just having the GPU power to do this, let alone making software for it
The work to make or even use a proper VR app or game is so so much more than the flat equivalent and there are only some added utility for spatial input. Tech can certainly improve some of that...
But a VR video call is solved... You can do it mostly out of the box with an AVP but who is going to buy a $3k device for yourself and anyone you want to call and then have a couple calls and never use it because its not worth the hassle to strap it on.
"Hey John, grandpa will expire soon can you quickly jump in your headset and upload yourself to his VR cabin in the wood, the one we rent from MetaSpital for $99 a day, to take a selfie with him before he dies alone in a cold hospital room"
It's a good thing. It's a nice thing. Chill.
I get that there's reasons to be angry at big tech but this isn't one of them. Accurate and easy 3d scanning, high fidelity rendering and a way to view in 6dof stereoscopic is just a great use case entirely separate from the machinations of our evil overlords.
> It's a good thing. It's a nice thing. Chill
That's your opinion, the fact that VR tanked hard seems to indicate most people don't agree
It's not always posible to meet up with people in real life. A lot of my friends moved overseas and I have neither the time nor inclination to be flying to sweden/the USA constantly.
> That's your opinion, the fact that VR tanked hard seems to indicate most people don't agree
This in no way changes the reality of their situation, in fact frankly, its irrelevant. Something being "nice" or "good" does not require it also have mass market appeal.
Everybody struggles with that trade-off; it would be nice if the pro virtual connected crowd acknowledged that a big part of the value of these relationships is that they aren't easy or casual. The infrequency and cost/effort involved is part of what inherently makes them special. I seem to be in the minority that would trade 100 cursory relationships for 1 deeply meaningful relationship.
That may be true for you, but it’s not universal. Only being able to see some of my cloest friends every few years beyond a phone call or text doesn’t make the relationship any more “special”, it just makes it feel distant.
VR doesn’t replace the real thing, but it does let me maintain closeness with people who aren’t geographically close anymore. I still fly out and see them, but between those moments, shared time in VR keeps the connection alive and meaningful.
> I seem to be in the minority that would trade 100 cursory relationships for 1 deeply meaningful relationship.
You’re not in the minority for wanting depth, but may be in a minority for assuming that depth can only come through scarcity and physical presence. Meaningful relationships are built on shared experience, and VR has given my friend group new ways to have those together despite no longer in fact, being together.
Once a month, I hang out in VR with friends scattered across the world. We drink, laugh, gesture, watch movies and even move. We attended a virtual dance party a while back and it was a fantastic time. It’s presence, not proximity, that matters for us in the end and we have found VR quite useful for that.
There are many use cases where this can add value. People these days live far from their families, what's wrong with connecting in a better/different way if desired?
Not everybody wants or can stay with their families for whole life and that's fine, something about personal freedom and right to self-determination, desire for massive personal growth that exposure to different cultures invariably brings in, adventures and so on.
This has to be satire, god emperor Zuck and his megacorp Meta fighting for our personal freedoms and right to self-determination. You're already living in an alternate universe apparently
Yes! actually cars did have a plausibly negative effect on connection. in the before times you couldn't travel far so you didn't. and you saw your family ever day of your life. It's not all it's cracked up to be sure, but we're talking logistics.
Now with cars you can go wherever! And people move continents away and are told to make the family trip once a year at thanksgiving to do the family thing. Can you believe that with more optionality comes paradoxically fewer "chosen" options. See Netflix.