[Patrol8394]

No, but wearing a VR set or glasses with cameras and what not is too invasive. And for what? Meeting in the metaverse? Video works great, I don't need an "immersive" experience.

Also, most of my family members have a pretty basic usage of smart phones.

But hey, I know nothing, this is just my opinion. Who knows, people are unpredictable.

[closedloop129]

There was no need for instant messaging and yet people don't use mail exclusively.

VR will work for the next generation when children grow up on VR playgrounds because parents can pretend that they don't watch tv all day.

You don't need a phone anymore. An LTE watch and a VR headset are enough for your online activities because the majority of time is spent in VR. If you have to decide between a cheap phone and a cheap VR set or a good VR set because you already have the watch, you will choose the VR set. You won't chose the expensive phone alone, because you need a VR set to interact with your friends.

Once the market accepts VR, regular flats become too expensive and everybody will live in small, windowless apartment that are only bearable when you spent all your time in VR. And since you spent all your time in VR, it's perfectly acceptable to rent a small, windowless apartment.

[spywaregorilla]

The problem is that VR sucks and there's no way around that with the current trajectory of tech.

Take this cringey "demo" from meta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAL2JZxpoGY

It's not possible. It's just not possible with the tech we have or will have any time soon. Start with 35 seconds in. Person on the right is floating legs out. This is impossible. It's possible to render that, but it's impossible to feel like you're floating in that position. We can ignore the presumed motion sickness. The video heavily implies that is her reality. But it's not. We cannot achieve the kind of presence you see in this or other popular things like ready player one. What is she really doing in the real world. Sitting down? Standing up?

Mark says "Whoa, we're floating in space", which is, for the record, so incredibly unimpressive for a digital world but whatever. He is not floating. He will not feel like he's floating. He will need either shitty physics or stupid controllers to move around. Which is fine for a game, but it's not going to set up the scene they're showing here.

They're also nimbly dealing cards with their hands. Good luck building that network replicated physics engine and hand inputs.

Black girl does a backflip. Sure, we can do backflips in games. But she also clearly has a lot of fun doing it. This person really feels like they're doing a backflip. Impossible.

And lastly, looking at abstract shitty visuals is not that interesting!

People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home. Everyone can always look at their phone they aren't immediately preoccupied.

[dieselgate]

I agree with you and your argument.

My one counter point is from playing Ocarina of Time on my N64: when Link jumps off a high object, my body and brain also experience the sensation of “falling” or the “sensation of expecting the full force of gravity in air”. It’s weird to describe in words but maybe it translates. Im curious to what objects/entities our minds can ascribe a “physical self” to, particularly in VR space.

Im aware of fields of study that encapsulate “phantom limb” type stuff and have experienced the sensation second hand (no pun intended my mom was an amputee). But am very curious how our brains process VR - yet I’ve never worn a headset and have very little desire to do so..

[spywaregorilla]

Jumping off things in VR is very unpleasant. You expect to feel things physically but do not. It's one of the more nauseating things to try and do. The worst part is the landing of course. You have an intuitive understanding of how landing works in real life. But video game characters tend to just stop on straight legs, especially in VR.

The landing animations you might see in some games don't work in VR. It's very awkward.

[closedloop129]

Cartoons don't look real and yet they are a useful medium. VR doesn't have to be real. VR just has to be better than regular phones.

>People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home.

Why would people leave home? With VR, there is no need for transport or additional real estate. The market will make sure that the average person won't be able to afford leaving their home.

[spywaregorilla]

> Why would people leave home? With VR, there is no need for transport or additional real estate. The market will make sure that the average person won't be able to afford leaving their home.

Poor people tend to handle last mile in person service jobs. That's not going anywhere.

> Cartoons don't look real and yet they are a useful medium. VR doesn't have to be real. VR just has to be better than regular phones.

Meta is selling it as something that feels real. They're not selling it as better phones. And you're claiming its going to comprise 100% of people's lives such that they never go outside anymore. Nonsense.

[closedloop129]

>Poor people tend to handle last mile in person service jobs. That's not going anywhere.

Right. But what are they going to do when they return from work?

>Meta is selling it as something that feels real. They're not selling it as better phones.

Right now, they target early adopters. That doesn't say much about how VR will be used. Compared to mobile phones, this is the time when people had phones in their car to show off. There is no network effect yet where you have to be in VR because your friends are in VR. The VR iphone hasn't been invented yet.

However, the network effect will come soon. Whoever owns the VR space first has a huge moat. Nobody wants to be Google or MS trying to close the gap to Apple. Thus all the big players will very very aggressively push their hardware into the market once it has all the features for mass adoption.

>And you're claiming its going to comprise 100% of people's lives such that they never go outside anymore. Nonsense.

Then I made my point too strong. Some people will go outside, especially those who have access to nice 'outsides'. But if you don't have a garden, and you live in an area without a park, and you don't have money to spend time in a bar, what are you going to do if you have access to technology that gives you the illusion of a garden, a park and money to spend on luxury items?

Urban density will increase because that's what drives innovation. But that will make living condition for the masses worse. The way out is VR.

[Patrol8394]

I already limit screen time for my kids at max 1h a day. You can image how can I feel as parent, seeing my kids spending hours in the freaking metaverse with screens and headphones pretty much embedded in their face. Not gonna happen.

[closedloop129]

Good for you and your children. When it comes to VR set market penetration, do you think your family represents the majority or are you an outlier?