[Helitico]

I'm really really curiuos who will win this bet.

I also have a htc vive pro + wireless transmitter + highend pc and i don't think at all that this will replace a normal monitor setup on a table.

Why?

Because wearing a headset on your head is just cumbersome.

I don't think anyone would ever sit in any outdoor setup with a VR headset on their heads because it looks idiotic, it ruins your hair and its too expensive to let it lay around.

And at home? At home people stoped wearing pants why would they give up a good display for a headset?

[lostmsu]

> because it looks idiotic

This is exactly what people thought of 5+ inch phone screens, and now nobody cares.

[dylan604]

Except with a 5in phone screen, you still have some sort of situational awareness of people walking up on you whether you choose to ignore that or not is totally different than being in a headset where you have none.

I keep seeing ads/promos for VR with people on a train/subway in a VR headset. I hope you don't mind having the rest of your stuff taken from you while you crush it in what ever game you're playing on the subway

[_carbyau_]

Yup. This is why I think that if VR goes mainstream and is used everywhere it'll actually be AR.

Real world with the AR "Killer App" - whatever that is. Google Glass will (sadly) be accepted by everyone in society eventually.

<s> Alexa/Siri: The optimal carriage for the train you are taking will stop 12 paces to your left. whoosh... screeech!

Alexa/Siri: Enter the door to board the train.

Alexa/Siri: The person seated 3 metres in front was recently given a 1 star Co-Rider review with the notes:"Loud shitty music."

Alexa/Siri: This person approaching you has been flagged for viol.... </s>

But it doesn't really matter. Ads will ruin everything. They always do.

[dylan604]

Yeah, the Terminator AR view was always the best use to me. Instantly image rec to find the names of people in your viewport type of stuff. Adding turn by turn arrows while walking a city/mall/etc.

Then, Black Mirror comes along and ruins it for everyone, because of course people will use it exactly as they proposed it could go. After seeing that, I don't want any part of it.

Is there a rule of the internet/tech/life that says for any good use, people will first take it to the dark places thereby ruining any potential good usage first?

[seydor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

[pharke]

3 words, full color passthrough. Meta includes sample footage of this in their demos so it's definitely coming with Cambria. While it would be possible to use a standalone headset out in public, I don't think that's the main goal. The hardware belongs in a home or an office where you have a dedicated play space tailored to whatever your use case is. Asking for something that people can use on the train on their way to work is trying to run before we can walk. VR headsets will replace desktop displays first because why wouldn't you want a device that can emulate any size, shape, or number of displays instantly with no cable management or mounting hardware and allow those displays to be visible whether you're at your desk, on the couch, grabbing a fresh cup of coffee or doing some stretches on your yoga mat.

[dylan604]

>Asking for something that people can use on the train on their

To be clear, I'm not asking for anything. This is from their own PR that I've seen this advertised as a use case.

[fourthark]

Except you are making yourself look idiotic instead of just holding something that looks idiotic.

[xtracto]

Similarly about 3D glasses and...

[GekkePrutser]

> I don't think anyone would ever sit in any outdoor setup with a VR headset on their heads because it looks idiotic, it ruins your hair and its too expensive to let it lay around.

Not something I care about in both counts. And I don't think people care. In fact I was at a trade show this weekend where someone was playing a Q2 game and everyone looked really interested.

And messing up my hair, well I hardly have any :)

[stackbutterflow]

because it looks idiotic Same as when people started talking to their bluetooth headset while walking on the street. It used to be disturbing and idiotic but no one bats an eye now.

[Helitico]

It is still irritating and not a lot of people do it.

[vimy]

It will just be a normal pair of glasses in 10 years. VR is in the pre-iPhone smartphone era.

[verdverm]

I would smart glasses, where I can see through to the real world, rather than pass through like the VR devives.

i.e. something like the hololens or spectacles

[GekkePrutser]

So basically like the Google glass ukelele demo that never came to pass.

It's getting there though. Vuzix have made really nice flat AR displays for their Blade. They just don't have a clue how to sell them afaik.

[belval]

The Quest 2 already has passthrough. When you exit your guardian, which is an area you defined as "safe", it will use the external cameras to essentially act as thick glasses.

Not to say that it is some kind of blissful experience, but it works reasonably well to go get a glass of water.

[verdverm]

The original Quest has passthrough as well, this is exactly what I don't want

you gain IRL latency for reduced pixels

[LegitShady]

I don't think it will be that far along in 10 years, or if it will, it will cost $5000 and won't see widespread adoption.

[charcircuit]

Enjoy your terrible FoV. I'll to take my nonglasses form factor immersive headset instead.

[bagels]

People who wear normal glasses already 'enjoy' a terrible field of view.

[sgtnoodle]

You still get peripheral vision when wearing glasses. It doesn't matter much if it's blurry.

[gfodor]

It’ll be thin eye covering passthrough goggles, full FoV

[encryptluks2]

Because a headset could become a better display, and while the technology may not be perfected.. if it was AR, it opens new possibilities.