[zdragnar]

VR is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed concept. To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else.

The average, casual user isn't going to do that on a regular basis. It's not something you can do with kids around if you need to keep an eye on them, unlike a book or a TV show or even a game on your phone or laptop.

Fundamentally, immersion is a selling point to a very specific audience, and a major drawback to everyone else.

[deltree7]

I've been literally playing Cricket VR for 4 hours everyday since X-Mas.

For someone who played college-level cricket, this is a dream come true for me and the sensation of hitting the ball in the middle of the bat is mind blowing.

But, here's the kicker. In real world, If I had play 120 pitches (baseball equivalent), I'd have to wait for 4 hours. In VR it could be done in 30 minutes.

I've already lost 7 pounds and feel energetic.

I can't imagine how playing sports, music, concerts in the next 5 years is going to be in VR accelerating the skill-mastery process.

People who diss VR is the same kind who diss AI. Mixed Reality / AI will enhance productivity of everyone leaving the luddites far behind

[graeme]

They argued VR total immersion is a niche case. I’m not sure you’re rebutting them?

Most people can’t exercise for four hours a day while ignoring their environment, effectively outside of their home.

Whereas if you had glasses that let you do AR thing, you could do that while keeping an eye on your kids or on what you’re cooking or while doing some chores or while brushing your teeth etc

What you described sounds very cool! But could you do it with young kids or a household to run?

[throwaway4aday]

I think this argument against VR stems from a misunderstanding of what VR is competing with or excelling at. VR is not your mobile phone. Repeat it with me, VR is not your mobile phone! You will not play bejewelled on the train in VR, you will not check your email while waiting for the kettle in VR, you will not doom scroll Twitter when you're lying in bed in VR. Those things, as you correctly identified, belong to the realm of AR. VR is not AR, they are two completely different types of technology, markets, use cases, etc.

The V in VR is there for a reason, the virtualization of experience is the core principle. The person you are replying to is using it to virtualize Cricket. It is replacing a real Cricket game with a virtual one. This has value because, I'm guessing, they haven't been able to play Cricket for a long time due to some set of constraints in their life. VR makes this former pastime available to them again because they don't have to leave their home, they don't need to buy or rent equipment (other than the headset and game), they don't need to find a local group, they don't need to schedule their time around a set date. All they have to do is put the headset on and jump in a match. Think hard about these differences. Ask yourself, what does it remind you of? Where has this happened before?

[graeme]

I think VR is cool! Really enjoyed playing a zombie game when I tried it. The cricket thing sounds fun. I can readily conceive more people will use it for niche experiences and use cases will grow.

But you still didn’t address OP’s point. Immersive VR is like being out of the house. You can’t keep an eye on things.

Most people living regular lives have a limited “out of the house” time budget, and would like to spend a good chunk of it on in person experiences or errands or work.

Actually this analysis suggests work has the highest potential to bring in VR, as most people already budget 8-10 hours of “out of house” time for work, so VR isn’t competing with anything except the office environment.

[deltree7]

VR/AR will be absolutely essential in training, remote work.

Like the initial PC revolution, many non-enthusiasts will be introduced through corporate.

As far as carving out time, VR can easily replace TV Time, Internet Time, Remote Facetime/Phonecalls, self-improvement time.

Mixed Reality is the final platform that ends all other platforms.

[lm28469]

> People who diss VR is the same kind who diss AI. Mixed Reality / AI will enhance productivity of everyone leaving the luddites far behind

There really is no guarantee for that. There have been a lot of techs supposed to disrupt everything just to flop miserably.

> in the next 5 years

I got a free vive in 2015 when they launched it in LA, promising a world wide revolution by 2016, 7 years later and still VR is nowhere to be seen. Just like fully autonomous teslas would be there "in two years" in 2012.

I'm very cautious with people promising revolutions "really soon". Crypto, VR, "AI", 3D TVs, 4D cinemas, self driving cars, it's all the same shit, rinse and repeat, "Bro! you gotta buy it now and invest everything you have in it RIGHT NOW! or you'll miss every opportunities!". All we get is the same as with everything else, very slow incremental evolutions, and that's when the tech doesn't straight up disappears

[deltree7]

chatGPT

[evo_9]

Yeah glad you’re enjoying vr but as someone that bought a vive in 2016 there is an embarrassing lack of quality software. I just looked at the top games 2023 article and literally every single one has been out for 2 years AND HL:Alyx is still the best / possible the only true ‘AAA’ vr game released to date.

Until the software gets moving with something truly interesting vr is pretty much a gimmick at this point.

I hold out small hope that when Nintendo and maybe Sony get really serious about vr, then we’ll get to some truly fun, unique and new game mechanics / experiences.

[adg001]

> in the next 5 years

I will not hold my breath. I tested the first (admittedly rudimentary) HMDs in the mid 1990s. VR was f-ing hot back in the days among those of us interested in "computer graphics". According to commentators, VR would have disrupted our lives over the next a few years. Here we are.

[throwaway4aday]

The key thing missing at that point was a half-trillion market surrounding the hardware comprising the VR devices. The cellphone industry is going to continue to plow ahead no matter what happens with the popularity of VR so no matter what displays are going to get better, mobile processors more powerful, energy efficient and smaller, networking will speed up, and hand-face-eye tracking will get better.

The only necessary tech that isn't driven by a large existing market are lenses. That's a pretty good deal for VR hardware, you just have to focus R&D money on one area while getting the rest practically for free (yes I know a lot of work goes into integrating those other components but it's nowhere near the same as having to develop the tech in the first place).

[causi]

Wish I could do that. VR is still a huge pain for people with very strong glasses prescriptions.

[Kubuxu]

You can order prescription lense inserts that lay over the lenses of the VR headset. You don’t have to wear glasses then.

[andybak]

Case here. No it isn't.

Every headset I've tried fits over my glasses. I've had several different frames over time as well.

[rusticpenn]

There's a cricket VR? can you tell me more (on a dm perhaps)

[deltree7]

IB Cricket

[icemelt8]

IB Cricket is the only useful app on the Occulus and yes its very good.

[endisneigh]

that sounds terrible honestly. 4 hours every day in VR? I'd rather play pickup soccer with friends in real life than in VR.

[accrual]

> To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else.

But what if that's what I want? I want VR so I can experience totally different worlds fully as if I was there. I can do that safely from my living room.

I want AR so I can live the cyberpunk dream of seeing data and other extra info overlaid on top of my normal vision while out in public.

I don't think either concept is flawed, they just have different purposes for different times and places.

[abirch]

I want VR so that I can have 8 different monitors and even more desktops. I want this at work so I can have different remote sessions up and just look right to see the current metrics, left for slack and email, vs code central...

[arcanemachiner]

I expressed this same desire to a friend, who warned me of the VR goggle marks left on your head when you take them off after a long session.

I want the VR monitors, but I'm wary of having a permanent mark on my head from wearing them for 8 hours a day for days on end...

[philjohn]

That's why a proper VR headset wins over the various cheap "strap your iphone in" things. The comfort on the latest headsets (that are not cheap, granted) are orders of magnitude better.

[TylerE]

Anything worn long enough is gonna leave a mark. Ask anyone on CPAP

[philjohn]

True - but, the degree and type of mark will likely be different.

[mulmen]

Is an HTC Vive considered "proper"? I used one for an hour last week and had a red mark on my face for most of dinner.

[abirch]

If this is the mark of the beast, I'll take it.

[Eisenstein]

I hope you know how to touch-type.

[acous]

It's already possible to bring a supported keyboard into VR on the Quest.

[lm28469]

Or write on a piece of paper without looking at it, or drink coffee without knowing where the cup is, &c.

[jupp0r]

That's super easy to learn.

[runnerup]

I'd imagine a mature AR product can still perform full VR.

[trzy]

100% agree. VR immersion is fundamentally broken anyway due to the locomotion problem. You can walk freely in your play area but it's always too small compared to typical game world size. So you end up being able to look around, duck, and dodge, but if you want to take a step forward, you need to remember to twiddle a joystick instead. It's a lot of cognitive load and discomfort for very little benefit.

Flat games feel quite immersive already. And others can easily be nearby and watch.

[accrual]

Regarding using a joystick to move around in VR, in my experience I wasn't very inconvenienced by it. I travelled immense distances in a variety of worlds and am glad to have not actually had to walk that far. I also found a preference for the original Vive's trackpads for movement over the Index's more conventional stick movement. The pad just felt more intuitive.

Walking around with 1:1 between VR and real space is indeed pretty cool, but I wouldn't want to do it full time in all games.

[ChrisRR]

Same, I've never really had an issue with walking with the stick. The only thing that really took some adjustment was learning to walk with the stick but turn in person, now it's just second nature.

[whywhywhywhy]

How come you manage to "remember to twiddle a joystick" in your flat games?

It's honestly not an issue and the early Valve thinking of that only room scale locomotion is acceptable is silly for anyone who's spent more than an hour in VR.

[andybak]

So. "fundamentally broken" is now code for "some aspects of it displease me"?

[gpderetta]

always was.

Commenting is fundamentally broken.

[actinium226]

Some games compromise on this by having the character sitting in the pilot's seat of a ship or a mech, making the interaction with the joystick make sense. I haven't tried them, but it seems like a good way to go, particularly for a game with fighter jets or something like that.

[a4isms]

I’m aware of several flight simulators that support VR headsets. For those who don’t get queasy using VR in a simulated aircraft, it is an excellent benefit:

In real life, many tasks like flying the landing pattern or joining a busy area of lift require constantly scanning both the instrument panel and outside the plane, at various angles.

If you use a standard monitor, you’re teaching your hands to push buttons that switch the direction of view. If you use VR, you teach yourself to look around with your head.

If you are flying for the purpose of training yourself to fly in real life, or practising skills you’ll use in a real aircraft, the latter is -referanke, all other things being equal.

[carbocation]

> the latter is -referanke, all other things being equal.

Based on the letters, I think "-referanke" is a typo for "preferable." Out of curiosity, do you type the 'b' key with your right hand?

[gpderetta]

Right hand was probably one-off the home row.

[carbocation]

Agreed. I type 'b' with my left hand which is why I was asking. E.g., if I had my right hand in the same spot, the 'b' would have been correct but the rest would have been the same.

[SystemOut]

I tried MS Flight Simulator with a Quest tethered to my desktop and I couldn't get the resolution high enough to be usable for the instrument panel. I'd have to still zoom in for them to be readable. The concept is amazing but I couldn't get reality to match up with it.

It was also weird not being able to see the my throttle and yoke and all the different buttons I needed to use. I didn't have enough hours on the setup to have it all be via muscle memory yet so I needed to be able to look at my cheat sheet sometimes.

[TheHappyOddish]

The Quest doesn't have the resolution, no. Common headsets for flight sims are the HP G2 Reverb and the Varjo Aero.

Serious simmers will usually havr a high end HOTAS and instrument panel set up too, which will reflect commonalities of real aircraft and be muscle memory.

[gardaani]

Flight sims are great in VR. E.g. Varjo XR-3 is part of a virtual reality-based training solution for aviation training. The headset has high enough resolution so that all instruments and their texts are readable.

https://varjo.com/company-news/varjo-and-vrm-switzerland-mak...

[GauntletWizard]

Plenty of games work at room scale, with foot locomotion in a small area. Beat saber, for example, is great and needs only a few feet of standing area, but there's also a ton of escape room games that work that way.

Don't discount teleportation based locomotion, either. You don't need to walk everywhere, and moving between rooms by fade-out works pretty well.

[dmix]

Yet VR is extremely fun and provides a set of experiences unmatched by traditional gaming. Especially for the Wii/casual crowd. Much like TikTok-hate on HN, it's probably another example of adult nerds who fail to grasp the value in early-adopter zoomer heavy tech (even though adult nerds have plenty to love if they actually spent time investing into trying it, just like TikTok).

> It's not something you can do with kids around

Whenever I played multiplayer Quest 2 games 99% of the voices were kids/young teenagers. Apparently it doesn't need parents to care, the kids in up their bedrooms is good enough.

If anything the problem is that good VR isn't cheaper than it already is, to hit the market for parents to buy it for their kids. The current selection of games on Oculus store is basically glorified Android games. But PC/Steam VR games I've tried like Half Life Alyx were mind-blowing.

Maybe when $2000+ PC VR setups finally mainstreams adult nerds will care. I highly doubt that's reliant on AR.

[Eisenstein]

Being a kid and having to take care of a kid are fundamentally so opposite of things that I can't believe you are confusing the two of them.

[dmix]

What's your point? That parents won't want to buy VR for their kids because they want to protect them a different video game interface that will ignore their surroundings slightly more than what they were doing before? If that's what you're saying it only shows you're someone who hasn't actually used VR much.

Anyone who has used VR knows it isn't even a permanent replacement for hardcore day-to-day gaming. That's why I used the Wii/Casual analogy. It's amazing for small spurts of lightweight gaming. Which just happens to be very attractive to kids/young teens (and yes non-gamer adults) who aren't hardcore gamers (Nintendo/mobile shows this is a massive market).

[Eisenstein]

Do you understand the point the parent was making? The children's market is not what VR developers are going for. For one: COPPA kinda makes monetizing VR spaces not possible; two: some parents might let their kids have one, but right on the device it says not to let kids under 12 use it, so I doubt most will. Mainstream consumer adoption is not squeaky voiced pre-teens.

[dmix]

Right, so you are saying you've never actually used VR for an extended period of time.

Spend 15min on any popular VR multiplayer game and tell me kids under 12 aren't using it en-masse.

[Eisenstein]

Do you not understand arguments or do you just ignore points you don't like? I am not contending that children don't use it. I am contending that children using it to any extent is not desired by the manufacturers nor does it count as mainstream consumer adoption. Please don't respond again about how kids use it.

[gernb]

> The children's market is not what VR developers are going for.

I think VR developers would be happy to have children's market as big as Nintendo's

[dragonwriter]

> The average, casual user isn’t going to do that on a regular basis.

So? Plenty of successful products aren’t for the average, casual user. HOTAS controllers aren’t for instance. So what? Not everything is universal adoption or nothing. Also, predictions about the “average, casual user” will want tend to be…unreliable. Trends driven by the kind of non-average, non-casual users that tend to be early adopters can shift this in surprising ways.

[endisneigh]

people are expecting and wanting at least AirPod level success here. I can't think of a mainstream product that's direct to consumer that's "niche", perhaps inherently so

[dragonwriter]

> I can’t think of a mainstream product that’s direct to consumer that’s “niche”

Well, yeah, that’s kind of trivially true; “mainstream” and “niche” are antonyms.

[endisneigh]

in a sense, yes, but something popular enough could border on mainstream despite the product category being niche, like apple watches.

[mattbrewsbytes]

I agree with the parent comment, VR is going to be a strictly niche thing. People, as in the vast majority of people, do not like wearing something covering their eyes for long periods of time. I think this is why Meta's big bet on Enterprise VR is going to be a flop.

This doesn't mean VR won't be successful for gaming or highly technical niche things just that getting over the chasm of early adopters/niche to mainstream isn't likely to happen. There are going to be a ton of anecdotes here on HN about how people like it but people here on HN are in the early adopter/gaming niches.

[throwaway4aday]

> the vast majority of people, do not like wearing something covering their eyes for long periods of time

I am dubious of this claim given that large numbers of people spend hours staring at their phones every day. They may not be covering their eyes but they are surrendering all of their attention to a tiny rectangle and foregoing a lot of other more worthwhile things.

My hope for VR is that the social experience becomes so compelling that it can break most people out of their addiction to their phones. That's going to be a hard nut to crack but the metaverse will be waiting for them when they finally look up.

[mattbrewsbytes]

If the pull into VR is sold as "<insert social-media-app> but now in VR!" or "shopping cart in VR!" its just not going to catch on.

The phone can be looked away from pretty easily. If they can accomplish that with VR headsets/eyeglasses somehow that could be a tipping point.

[throwaway4aday]

No thanks. VR is about the experience, not the content. Its killer app is being together in the same space as other people, not shopping or posting text. More immersion is better so it doesn't matter if you can easily look away from it, ideally you would have a smart passthrough that lets you bring elements of your surroundings into VR so that you can easily pick up a drink or find your couch. Moms won't be using VR as a time sink while they're waiting in the car to pick up the kids, they'll be using it when the kids are in bed so they can go out for drinks and a movie with their friends.

[Jochim]

I wonder if high quality pass-through video would improve the issue with covering the eyes.

I've found that even the current pass-through on the Index has made me a lot more comfortable moving around, knowing that if I'm close to knocking something I'll get a low-res view of the real world before I hit it.

[mattbrewsbytes]

Maybe. What I don't get is any sense of what value VR adds for a business.

Imagine a 200 person call center dealing with health insurance claims, questions, etc. They likely have a PC, headset/phone (possibly digital) and a bunch of licenses to software that might cost an average of $1500 per person to have them be functional. It operates in a cost center part of the company, budgets are tight, investments in IT have to have an ROI to make sense. What value is there in a $1500 VR headset per person? How is this going to save that department money?

[throwaway4aday]

It won't, they set up the call center so they could get rid of the more expensive in person local offices that used to exist to handle claims and sell insurance. That's not the right business for VR anyways, it's too broadly customer facing whereas VR for business is more B2B or internally focused. Remote workers are a big target for VR. Virtual doctor's visits are another. Remote education. Internal company training for maintenance, emergency or other physical procedures. B2B sales calls. Interviewing. Even tradeshows would be a target with a capable enough network and server setup.

[Jochim]

To be honest I haven't thought about the business case for VR much. I enjoy it as a recreational tool.

I do think AR has some amazing potential for business and I suppose VR efforts could work as a stepping stone to getting that right.

Some random thoughts that might work now that I'm thinking about it:

* A social tool for remote companies. * It might improve remote meetings/whiteboarding. * I'd probably be more likely to go to a VR trade show than a real life one.

I don't think it's going to take over every enterprise. A laptop is more than enough for a lot of work, VR would probably get in the way.

[ChrisRR]

> To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else.

You really don't. People who haven't played VR don't seem to understand how easy it is to lose yourself. Your brain quickly adjusts to the lack of peripheral vision, bad graphics, low contrast, etc. and you quickly find yourself leaning on things that aren't really there or hitting walls because you forgot that you've wandered off.

[ubercore]

> Your brain quickly adjusts to the lack of peripheral vision, bad graphics, low contrast, etc

I'm always reminded of this when I revisit a game I remember playing as kid. The graphics and sound _never_ live up to my memory of them. Brains are great at filling in those details.

[moonchrome]

Viewing VR through the lens of entertainment is a fundamentally flawed approach IMO and the whole industry got this wrong.

In the era of remote working how insane would it be if you could just carry a set of glasses and have infinite monitor space anywhere you go ? And once people are using it 8 hours a day for work - the stigma around using it for fun goes away.

[galaxyLogic]

But there is Augmented Reality. You could be watching something while the augmented reality tracks your kids on a virtual overlay.

It's not too different from having Google driving instructions. You don't immerse yourself in them. But when driving it would be nice not to move your eyes to the small phone screen but instead see it though your VR lenses while at the same time seeing the road ahead through it. Keep your eyes on the road, but also get alerts and instructions without having to let your eyes off the road.

[TylerE]

Real killer app will be pack of cards or smaller projector that will turn any shiny surface into an ad hoc HUD.

Gets most of the value of AR without having to wear anything. Like… imagine being able to have a recipe projected right on to the counter top or stove door.

[xrguy]

indeed, i guess thats what humane is working on.

[galaxyLogic]

I think it's important that Augmented Reality is implemented by mostly the same tech as Virtual Reality.

I think AR is more useful at least to begin with, it helps us in real reality, not in some virtual reality which requires lots of people to be in the SAME virtual reality as you are to be useful. Whereas everything and everybody around you already is in your augmented reality.

[jesuscript]

The average user wont do it because there is still physical barriers. The headsets are too heavy still, and outside of the Quest2, they are usually tethered. It’s not a casual experience yet because even putting the headset on is not a casual matter. You have to fuck with the strap to get a nice aligned view, constantly adjust the visor, scratching your nose or adjusting your glasses requires fumbling around.

It’s not as simple as picking up your phone, or … well, it’s not as simple as putting on glasses.

[ilyt]

I'd think that's more related to a fact you need pricy gaming PC in addition to pricy headset, all to play select few games

> You have to fuck with the strap to get a nice aligned view, constantly adjust the visor, scratching your nose or adjusting your glasses requires fumbling around.

I doubt anyone didn't get VR for that reasons

[gernb]

and yet people ride bikes, mountain climb, ski, surf, all things that requires equipment and setup time.

[lmm]

Other than casual utility cycling (which doesn't require expensive equipment or setup time), people don't do those things casually. Most people don't do them at all, or do them occasionally on a dedicated holiday for doing that. People who are really into them do them a lot, but even those people generally do them on dedicated trips.

[chaostheory]

VR has a lot of problems, but that’s not one of them. The only thing you’ve proven is that you have yet to use modern VR within the last three years.

The main problem is that the current VR device form factor is so intimidating for most people that they won’t even bother putting it on to try it. Instead, they’ll just make a lot of bad assumptions about a product that they haven’t actually tried yet for a good amount of time

[throwaway4aday]

The intimidation aspect is interesting here. I'm old enough to remember people being intimidated by the big scary computer on the desk. People being weirded out by VR and prophesying that it's just a fad very much so reminds me of the same responses to computers.

[chaostheory]

I do feel that are we are now in that same era for VR where there is a huge barrier to mass adoption. I believe only Apple can move the industry ahead at this point

[mr_toad]

> unlike a book or a TV show or even a game on your phone or laptop.

You can’t even pick up a beer while playing a game. That’s a deal breaker.

[TheHappyOddish]

You absolutely can and people often do in VRchat.

[tiborsaas]

Google "beer belt" :)

[seanmcdirmid]

If it’s your one hour of exercise a day, you can make it work. But yes, keep young kids away, especially if you’ve learned to punch or slash really hard in your VR shadow boxing or fencing experience.

Immersion isn’t really the problem in that case, the experience just needs to be distracting since your primary goal is to sweat. VR fitness is the killer app.

[tiborsaas]

> To immerse yourself, you need to block out your peripheral vision and everything else.

Sounds perfect for a flight.

[TheHappyOddish]

I've experimented taking a rooted Quest 2 on flights before and have enjoyed it. 6DOF is a bit of a problem, but watching movies and non movement based games are great.

[detrites]

Apart from the flailing limbs and suddenly-rotating head with apparatus. Eliminating those, are we back to just watching a movie? That said, I'd much rather watch a movie on a plane in a VR headset than off of a seat back.

[throwaway4aday]

Watching a movie in VR on a flight beats the hell out of the crappy headrest TV. A 2 hour flight turns into a 2 hour experience in a full size movie theatre. The seats are fairly similar so it would probably add to the immersion. With good noise cancelling headphones you might even forget you're on a plane.

[tiborsaas]

I mean, there are other applications for VR that might make sense for spatially limited situation like a flight is. On some planes I couldn't even open my laptop properly. With VR you might have lots of screens.

[major505]

I don't have much use for VR. But augmented reality seens to be more the way of the future.