[Eisenstein]

I love VR, but it is terrible for things like watching movies. Imagine sitting on your couch and putting on a movie. How often do you do that? If it is more often than 'once in a while', are you actually sitting and watching it intently the entire timee? Are you eating, or drinking anything, or petting your cat or dog, or snuggling on the couch with your SO or kids? You can't do that with a VR headset on because you can't see anything else at all. If you grab for a glass you have to switch to pass-through mode and back again, or take off the headset. You also can't do anything but look at the screen.

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.

[Karrot_Kream]

> 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.

[exodust]

> younger folks won't see this distinction as pronounced

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.

[Karrot_Kream]

I realize you disagree with my take, but if you want to understand it at least, I would suggest trying to steelman my position. The examples you bring up are probably the absolute worst cases for VR and if you judge a technology by its worst cases then nobody would use a technology. Judge an argument by its strongest interpretation, not its weakest.

> 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".

[exodust]

> This same argument could have been used to argue against the Internet

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.

[Nevermark]

> The internet isn't trying to be "reality"

> 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.

[towaway15463]

This sounds like an argument against TV or movies or the internet. Those things are also substitutes for real life experiences and yet people still spend huge amounts of time with them. VR doesn’t have to preclude the rest of the world. It’s an addition to it. When you don’t have the money or the time or the energy to go out it’s nice to be able to jump into something like VR and have fun with others from the comfort of your home.

[exodust]

If we had to strap our TV to our heads, we'd gravitate to something that didn't require that.

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.

[ehnto]

What I was trying to communicate in my original post was that VR is not like those mediums on this specific point. It completely removes you from the environment, it provides a lot more immersion but then also takes a lot more commitment to dive into. It only takes me 30 seconds to get the headset on and be in a game, so that's not the issue, it's just an entirely different level of engagement. I almost feel a little guilty when I use VR, because it feels like I'm forgoing the real world. I don't feel that way about games or movies.

[towaway15463]

That’s odd because I have the opposite feeling. I almost never play regular computer games anymore because I see it as a time sink. I also avoid watching things by myself for the same reason. Playing a VR game or spending time with others in VR feels much more rewarding because I’m using my body instead of sitting in a chair and I feel more engaged with the people I talk to when they are embodied in an avatar and we are present in a space together vs just hearing their voice through headphones.

[towaway15463]

Well, I do watch movies with others in VR on a fairly regular basis and it’s great. Could be better, headsets need to be more comfortable and pass through has room for improvement but both of those things are on the very near horizon.

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.

[Eisenstein]

Sure, it has use cases, but the fact is that something like a phone, or a tablet, or a TV can be used and not used within a fraction of a second as required. Putting on a headset is like going to a movie theater -- it is fine for occasions but it isn't something I can see people wanting to do regularly.

[curioussavage]

You are thinking with present limitations and I mostly agree.

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.

[Eisenstein]

I look forward to the improvements -- like I said, I love VR.

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.