WMN: t3_2z2msj_t1_cpg5mao

[TITLE]

CMV: VR is a fad that will suffer the same fate it did in the 90's

[fatal__flaw]

This is in relation to the mass consumer market (i.e. some niche markets in VR might be here to stay). Here are the reasons. Quote or name the item you wish to refute. 1. **Big, bulky, expensive, complicated, and confines you to a fixed space.** The trend in technology is going the opposite direction: Things that are highly portable, over-simplified and light. Less complexity, not more, has been the winning strategy. 2. **Difficult to adopt** Good luck getting grandma and grandpa buying these things, connecting them to a kick-ass expensive computer, and using them at home. The idea of having grandparents tele-presence into your kids birthday party sounds great, but highly impractical. 3. **Inferior to just using Skype/Facetime/Etc, for interacting with family, friends, and business** Instead of getting my parents to buy these things along with computers and everything else they need, simply Skyping from their phones not only is quick and easy, but I can also see them and we can communicate in a very human level. I'm not looking at a tele-presenced robot or orb, I'm looking right at their faces and taking part of all the non-verbal communication that goes along with that. The tele-presence Skype tablet RC devices are fine - I can see and interact with the people at the other end, and they can see and interact with me. VR, however, doesn't work. Even on a virtual business meeting, I don't want to see ridiculous avatars of my partners, I want to see them and communicate effectively. 4. **Not compelling for events such as concerts** Tele-presence in concerts or special events will not be compelling. Being at the event is about interacting with everyone around you. Taking that away, and it's just a crappy app were you can't really see the event clearly nor hear/feel the music the way you can live. If audio technology that can recreate a live environment becomes commercially available, I rather watch the event on youtube that way. since taking human interaction away, all that's left is enjoying the raw performance. On a professional recording I get a better view of the stage, better audio, less noise from the crowd, etc. 5. **Control issues** A controller that would be great for a FPS video game, is not the same as one for tele-presence, nor the same for playing virtual golf, etc, etc. There's no clear path to a breakthrough in this area. It might take 30 years, it might not happen. For now we are left with it being a sitting experience with some crappy controllers. Basically glorified 3D glasses, which themselves didn't revolutionize the industry. 6. **Novelty wears off for games** Play *Fallout3* or *Team Fortress* and it's pretty awesome for the first 10 minutes, but after that, you just want to play the damned game. Same thing happened with the 3DS. After 10 minutes, all the 3D would do is get in the way of the experience. You play a game to play a game, not to look around like a dumbass. At the end of the day, being able to jump in and out of a video game quickly and easily wins over my desire to stand there looking around like a dumbass. 7. **OK for tele-presenced travel** The one area it might be cool is virtual travelling where I can stand live on a street in Paris, for instance. However, moving would be very difficult or not done, so limited as well. I can have a friend in Paris wear a helmet with a VR camera so I can experience what he/she experiences, but it would be quite awkward for him/her, and I'd have no control over what happens. As far as I can see, any improvements to fix these problems are either 20-30 years in the future, or might not happen. NOTE: I don't count AR in this. AR is a clear win. Being to see info on anything you see in real life is huge. For example, looking at someone's car, and being able to see make,model,price,dealers is a win. Human hunger for raw information is clear. Another example, is seeing all the words in my environment in my native language (For example, go to China and see English instead of Chinese when you look at any writing in signs, stores, museums, etc). Maybe even hear English when others speak foreign languages one day. Look at a star and see it's name and constellation. Look at a virtual TV in my living room that I can make bigger or smaller at will. Many many awesome things will be possible with AR. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Saedeas]

I don't know if you actually follow VR news, but the Vive demos recently have definitely put #5 to rest. The controls are absolutely amazing, and potentially absurdly customizable (any peripheral requires only a few photodiodes). You are also confined to a space, yes, but it is a 15ft by 15ft space you are tracked in and can move around in. The tech is there. The experience is there. People were literally crying during the recent GDC after their demos. It's going to happen this year, and become big in three to five years. It's not the 90's.

[awa64]

[STA-CITE]>Difficult to adopt: Good luck getting grandma and grandpa buying these things, connecting them to a kick-ass expensive computer, and using them at home. The idea of having grandparents tele-presence into your kids birthday party sounds great, but highly impractical. [END-CITE]I think the Google Cardboard approach is the most likely approach to make VR catch on. Strap your high-DPI cellphone to your forehead, and bam, you've got VR goggles. Grandma and Grandpa might never adopt it, but Mom and Dad might try it out. [STA-CITE]>Novelty wears off for games: Play Fallout3 or Team Fortress and it's pretty awesome for the first 10 minutes, but after that, you just want to play the damned game. Same thing happened with the 3DS. After 10 minutes, all the 3D would do is get in the way of the experience. You play a game to play a game, not to look around like a dumbass. At the end of the day, being able to jump in and out of a video game quickly and easily wins over my desire to stand there looking around like a dumbass. [END-CITE]People already tweak monitor FOV and graphics performance for an edge in competitive games. Is it really hard to believe that the same type of consumer who gets surround-sound headsets and eyestrain-reducing color backsplash engines for playing FPSes competitively would get a VR headset too, just to improve their viewing angle?

[MahJongK]

It will not revolutionize videa games the way supporters in /r/oculus dream of. But the telepresence for live tv can be great. And as a niche it can be great for specific video games.

[HumpRAWR]

Buy Google Cardboard or a Gear VR. Plaster your phone to your face. Walk on Mars. How is that big, bulky, expensive, complicated, and confined? Oh, and that's already old tech at this point. More phone companies are getting involved. More games are being produced. More input is being created. And prices on these things are dropping as time goes on. Join the folks on /r/convrge sometime.

[looklistencreate]

You might want to put the words "virtual reality" somewhere in the first paragraph. I had no idea what you were talking about until pretty far down. Virtual reality in the 1990s couldn't find a market because it was underdeveloped and really bad, not because there wasn't one. And your list of possible uses is nowhere near exhaustive. There are possible virtual reality films in development, for example. Half of the issues you mention aren't necessarily permanent, like the relative difficulty of use for gaming.

[KevinWestern]

The Oculus Rift VR headset is going to be cheap (like $200) I believe, and is absolutely incredible. You literally feel like you're immersed in a new world. Why didn't it work in the 90s? Because the technology simply wasn't there. In order to be convinced you're in a new environment you need to have reached a certain level of graphics and clarity which didn't exist in the 90s. It's going to create a new way to game, and it's going to create a new way to porn (but not the only way to game and porn, of course). And for further evidence: Facebook just bought Oculus technology for a few billion dollars. Billions are usually not thrown around willy nilly.

[pensivegargoyle]

I'm not so sure. VR in the 90s failed because the graphics processing power available didn't make the graphics live up to their promise. Instead of something virtually real there were environments that were very simple, blocky and failed to move realistically. It was also far too expensive to use at home. I think that both the graphics and the economic issues have been much improved since. It's expected that when the Oculus Rift is able to be released commercially, it will be available for $400. While not exactly cheap combined with the PC needed to use it, it's affordable for the middle class. Games are already being developed that work with it and so it seems likely that it will be a success if perhaps not an overwhelming one in that market. [Simulation sickness](http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BenLewisEvans/20140404/214732/Simulation_Sickness_and_VR__What_is_it_and_what_can_developers_and_players_do_to_reduce_it.php) is going to continue to be an issue. Don't forget that there's a whole set of serious work in 3D modeling that can benefit from VR whether it's architecture, medical imaging or molecular design and that will create a business market for the technology.

[Lansan1ty]

I don't think I'll suffer the same fate as VR in the 90s. But I agree it wont go mainstream. But since the point is to argue against it failing like it did in the 90s, I think I can help change your view there. There is a lot more external support going into VR nowadays, with better technology allowing for the VR sets to have the same quality visuals as current-gen averages. (1080p). I run dual monitors both at 1080, so I'm used to this resolution, many people are. Also the gyroscopes and other "positioning/tracking" technologies are definitely there too. VR gaming will not become the standard in any way, no, but it will not fail either. There will be a niche market of at least several hundred thousand customers at the very least; People who love simulation games. Just like how PC Flight Sticks, HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick), or racing wheels are still made and not considered failures, VR will join that market. If I want to play Counter Strike or Dota 2, I won't use a VR headset. I'm not the target audience. If I want to play Star Citizen, or a FPS Horror game like Amnesia or Alien: Isolation. The immersion alone will be worth the cost, to me. This is why I don't think VR will "fail". I do agree that it wont be in every household like a TV, for at least another few decades.

[Trilingual]

But don't you think VR is a lot more amazing than something like using a joystick, or just any regular simulation game? As someone who plays games the old-fashioned way and who does not use any of the weird controllers, like the Wii controllers or Kinect, I feel like VR has way more potential, because at this point there is not much more technology to add. Only support and creative games are needed as the price of the technology goes down.

[Lansan1ty]

I can't think of any other genres which benefit from VR, perhaps eroge which is technically a simulation game. MMO? Not really. There's no use MMORPG gameplay through VR unless the game is constricted to FPS, so something like Star Citizen will work, but not WoW, EVE, UO, whatever. RTS? There is some potential here, but it would have to be made exceptionally well. (the execution) Being able to view a little bit more of the screen by moving your head around would be nice in large fights... but really, I don't see people buying VR to play Legacy of the Void. Fighting Games? Street Fighter, Skullgirls, Tekken, none of these benefit from VR. FPS? Games like Counter-Strike where mouse precision is paramount won't benefit from the added requirement of head position. Shift your head a little bit at the wrong time and you won't kill that guy around the corner. Games like Amnesia, where twitch shooting doesn't matter, will benefit greatly. Simulation shooters like Arma/DayZ will benefit from it if played in FPS. Imagine yourself sitting in a chair, mouse and keyboard in hand, and instead of looking at your monitor(s), you have a 360 degree field of view VR headset. (not really 360 unless your mouse and keyboard are bound to your chair or something, but close). The only games which have a lot to gain are games where you're playing in first person. I can see playing HL2 or Bioshock with it, but those games pale in comparison to the horror subgenre, and even that will pale in comparison to simulation games. VR is inherently for simulation (when it comes to gaming).

[Trilingual]

But then you are going through a list of popular games that weren't intended for VR to judge its validity. I think you are excluding the possibility that VR can be so cool and wanted that it will have more games (and other things) specifically developed for it, rather than trying to make it adapt to things that weren't made for it. It would be like how mobile games have become popular, even though all of those games you mentioned would not be good on mobile devices. I think this time the processing power and technology is really there to create something new. We as a society have been dreaming about VR entertainment for a long time, and now it's here.

[Lansan1ty]

Dismissing games which are not intended for VR, you then need to make games explicitly for VR, which is a huge gamble for companies when people wont be buying VR randomly. You tried to separate VR from Kinect because you didn't use Kinect, but this is essentially the same thing. Why make a game for VR when the only people who will likely buy VR day 1 are the people who will use it for Sim games? (Or people who will have it collecting dust after using it for a few weeks). Mobile gaming became popular through a new target audience. AAA mobile games generally "fail" (By AAA I mean like Assassins Creed or similar) while Puzzle games worked. They were fun and simple, good for killing time on the bus or train, or while on lunch break. Also, everyone already owned their phones. You're playing off the assumption that everyone will go out of their way to buy a ~$300+ peripheral for games which aren't out yet, to show devs that the market is ready for new games, that won't happen on the same scale as nearly everyone in a first world country owning a cell phone capable of playing candy crush saga or flappy bird. There are about 1 BILLION Android users and 500 Million iOS users out there, compare that to ~10 million PS4 owners, or 9 million concurrent steam users or PC (100M+ total accounts, but I myself have 5 steam accounts, and I have friends who haven't logged on in years [dead accounts]). How many of the 10 Million PS4 owners do you think will really pay for the Sony PS4 VR set? How many people will really buy an Oculus Rift or ValveVR? It'll start niche in 2015/2016. Maybe in ~2025 or so, after a few generations of the technology has been out and the price point starts to drop, you'll see it gain traction, but don't count on it becoming a huge thing for a long time. I'll get one, but I'm a PC hobbyist, and I want to be immersed in Star Citizen as much as I can. I'm even considering a HOTAS for it (something I would never get without StarCit)

[Trilingual]

I think the main difference between VR and Kinect is that VR is just a lot more impressive when used, and also works better. Kinect can be clumsy, and I think the cool factor is actually much less. I really don't see VR headset costs being an issue for a very long time, because most of its technology is stuff that gets used in other devices anyway. Its price will fall regardless of how fast the VR itself gets traction. It's just two small screens, an accelerometer(?), some lenses for optics, and some interface to connect to another device. All of those things are bound to become cheaper and cheaper, and I actually feel like affordable VR entertainment is inevitable. In my mind it's just so cool. What average person wouldn't want one if it were affordable? You really could make all sorts of entertainment for it. It's definitely better than 3D glasses.

[Lansan1ty]

[STA-CITE]> It's definitely better than 3D glasses. [END-CITE]You have to understand that's an opinion. I agree with that opinion, but I'm also a "hardcore gamer" if categorized. Generally, PC gaming itself is a niche if you consider the mobile market now.

[fatal__flaw]

The question then is whether this niche market of several hundred thousand can sustain the development and manufacture of VR equipment, not to mention improvements that will help grow the market. If you need millions of customers to sustain the market, rather than hundreds of thousands, then it can still fail. After giving it more consideration, I will concede niche markets can keep VR alive until the next breakthrough that can make them more mainstream. I award a delta ∆

[cdb03b]

It can specifically because of sites like kick starter that allow said niche market to directly fund the development of the tech.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Lansan1ty. [^Lansan1ty's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/lansan1ty) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[Feroc]

I own a Oculus Rift DK2, all my opinions base on this specific kind of hardware as long as not mentioned otherwise. [STA-CITE]> Big, bulky, expensive, complicated, and confines you to a fixed space. [END-CITE]Those are already a lot of different points. I'll start with "big and bulky": That doesn't matter! When not in use it's small enough to be stored out of sight and when in use you won't see it. Weight is the only important thing there and the DK2 isn't really that heavy. Expensive: Compared to what? For me it's the price of a normal "good" screen. Complicated: Yes, at the moment. But it's still in development and there are already some nice start and play applications that show how it could be. Fixed space: Do you usually run around when playing games? I don't. [STA-CITE]> Difficult to adopt [END-CITE]My grandma surely isn't the target audience. She doesn't even have a smartphone, surely that didn't harm the success of smartphones. [STA-CITE]> Inferior to just using Skype/Facetime/Etc, for interacting with family, friends, and business [END-CITE]Yes, it's also inferior to a car for getting from point A to B. Communication with VR is just a very small subset of things it somehow could do. [STA-CITE]> Not compelling for events such as concerts [END-CITE]You're comparing it to being live there, of course it's always better to be live there... you have to compare it to watching it on TV. And I guess it would be better to use sport events as an example. Music bands often will be close to you sometimes and you will be able to visit the concert. But many sport events are either very expensive, far away or both. [STA-CITE]> Novelty wears off for games [END-CITE]Games have to be different for VR, then it will be just a natural thing to use VR to play the game. It's a bit like 3D movies in the cinema. You don't watch it because you want stuff flying towards you all the time to show you "yes, this is 3d!", you watch it in 3d because it feels more natural to have some depth.

[unholyravenger]

Ok I'm going to go though these one by one. 1. It's sizable now but all new tech is rather large, given enough time the size of these devices will shrink considerably.It's fair to say that this is a problem at the moment but it wont be for very long. People are already working on [contact lenses for with pixels](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozEwH9v5Fk0). Although this tech is very far off from being used as a consumer product. 2. Ya fair enough grandma and grandpa are not going to adopt this, and if they do it will be very late into the game, but this isn't targeted towards them. VR right now is for gamers, and a select few professionals that can use it for research and other purposes. Eventually it will work for TV and Movies but that is going to be a slow transition, everything about the process of making a movie will have to change and I don't see that happening for a while. 3. You are dead on in this category, personally I think AR is the way to go for long distance communication. 4. I am personally very excited for this aspect. Going to a concert will always be better, yes no question about. However, if done correctly being able to walk on around the stage of a performance is something I have never been able to do. To walk up to whom ever is playing grab a set and just watch their fingers go to town on a guitar, and then walk over to the drummer and see him work. It would be so cool, and a completely unique way to experience a concert the likes of which simply does not exist today. 5. I mean have you looked at the controllers that are available for this? Value has a interesting take with the controller and the hydra is pretty neat too. That being said the best controller will be a gun. There is nothing more natural then holding a gun in real life when your holding a gun in VR. It is about as to close to a 1 to 1 comparison to what you would be using in real life. And if you don't like that stick with keyboard mouse while using vr. 6. I mean your comparison to the 3ds is pretty bad IMHO, a 3ds using a completely different kind of 3d and is not immersive in any way. And if your sitting using VR it's going to take what an extra min to jump in and out of game? You can still use keyboard mouse, just put on the goggles next to your computer and bam your in. 7. Ya virtual travel would be cool. I don't know this my self but I would be curious to know what distance 3d cameras would need to be in order to walk around the plane 1:1. I would think they could be decently spaced out, like the distance between street lights. Of course there will be blind spots by people walking. Look at street view you can see 100% the road with decently space pictures. The software would have to be pretty cleaver for edge cases to prevent the stretching of the terrain though. This one is probably a while off from being possible in any meaningful way but it'll get there. As a side note I would like to list a few advantages to vr. 1. Head tracking. Being able to look around corners in videos games by moving you head at an angle is a very natural thing to do, I do it all the time even though it does nothing ATM. 2. Immersion, VR is the ultimate immersion into a world. Everything you see is the virtual world and allows a direct communication to the artists world. Think about how crafted a scene from a movie is, every detailed is planned. There is one thing the artist doesn't not have control over ATM and that is your surroundings. If the scene is in a mansion it's much lets immersive if I'm watching it in some crappy apartment. With VR everything you see is the mansion. 3. Lastly, I think the most telling sign of the power of VR is the videos of people using it and freaking out. This [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INDKNA7kXoo) show what I'm talking about. It really reminds me of stories of the first movie. It was of a train ridding down a track and as it passed the camera everyone jump out of the way. These people in the video have grown up with television and yet they have to same reaction to people who saw videos for the first time. It's a sign of a tremendous leap in immersion.

[fatal__flaw]

[STA-CITE]> I am personally very excited for this aspect. Going to a concert will always be better, yes no question about. However, if done correctly being able to walk on around the stage of a performance is something I have never been able to do. [END-CITE]How would this be done though? If it's a real concert for my tele-presence to move, whoever is holding the camera would have to move. You can map the environment from the camera's point of view, but you can't see different angles.

[MahJongK]

No, it wouldn't be 100% telepresence as we wouldn't move the camera, but it will revolutionize the tv director's and camera operator's jobs and live tv events in general (long term). All this is not tied to VR and can be done with wall screens (projectors), but VR would add something. With the great number of camera we have now for sport events and concerts, we will basically ditch the general idea of precise framing and directing (choosing one camera) with **180° live camera** (and then 360° within two planes, ie **globe**). We could either rely on the director's traditionnal job for selecting the best camera and be passive like tv. The camera operator wouldn't move the camera much (almost no pan), just follow the action when the camera's movement is bigger, nothing else. We would then be able to **choose our point of view** in real time and be able to stay on one camera. With wider globe camera we'll be able to turn our head to focus on whetever we want from that specific point of view. Then in the future with higher resolution we'll be able to even **zoom in** from that pov. Then in the future we'll be able to recontruct in live 3D the action and move the pov like what you have with baseball in the US for reviewing a play (free 3D camera). Or with a simple button we can catch up with the director's flow and return to passive mode. And we wouldn't feel the immersion breaker of videao games where we have to disconnect our body movements from the moving pov as the camera in sports events won't move. The limitations are standards and a bandwith. Fast switching from ultra-wide HD (x5 to x10 HD streams) or streaming the whole data at the same time will be much bigger, but it will come. Other than that I agree with IIIBlackhartIII [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2z2msj/cmv_vr_is_a_fad_that_will_suffer_the_same_fate_it/cpf7g2a) (second paragraph), it will be a great niche. Especially for sims where the current camera movements (pan) don't have to be so quick. The only way to bring something wider than the small niche is to bundle the headset with the console.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

I go to a technology academy, and we actually just had our yearly "tech convention" where we get our business partners to set up booths and show off their hardware to the students. A lot like I/ITSEC, if anyone has gone to that. Although, of course, on a much smaller scale. Our gaming foundations teacher got a hold of a dev kit Occulus Rift for this event, and was showing it off. Most of the students had a go, and so did I, and I own an android phone... so here's my take having experience with what I'm talking about... The big difference between old school VR and modern VR is hardware. Duh. The premiere VR products of that era were devices like the Nintendo Virtual Boy, who's entire experience was a red washed monochrome with games that could barely handle the extra power needed to run in stereo... fast forward to today and we have games that are nearing photorealism. We have phones with "retina" displays, so we have the technology to make screens with a pixel density high enough to make individual dots imperceptible inches from the face. And all of our devices have tilt sensor gyroscopes... this is technology that has been around a long time and companies are experienced with it. The biggest challenge at this point is just reducing the latency enough that it doesn't make us motion sick, but the concept we have down easily. Most android phones can now take equirectangular sphere maps of a scene around them using [Google's built in camera](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.GoogleCamera&hl=en) (they call it PhotoSphere), and those bubbles can be viewed in real time using the tilt sensor just like a VR headset right from your phone. Hell, they even released a [cardboard "dev kit" for it](http://www.google.com/get/cardboard/). So you can play at home with what an Occulus might be like. And having worn an Occulus, I can say that we are very close to them being perfect. Here's the thing though... people are expecting it to revolutionize gaming, and on its own VR is not going to do that. Not at all. Alongside things like omnidirectional treadmills we might see gaming become more like a holodeck from star trek, but even that is a luxury. And VR is not going to work for every game. VR is just another peripheral. Just another way to experience a game. Just like 3D monitors, joypads, PC controllers, racing wheels, motion controls, and rockband guitars didn't take over gaming... they were never meant to be a catch-all game changer. They're made to work as an extension for certain games for certain people. They are niche. That said, VR is probably going to take over the simulation market by storm. For games like Eurotruck Simulator, Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen... games where you are locked down inside a cockpit and sitting and just want to be able to look around and feel immersed... it will be absolutely amazing. For games like Battlefield and CoD and TF2 where you're going to feel disconnected from the feet running underneath you, like some kind of camera on a stick, it probably won't be amazing. Some games work better with different kinds of controls; a MOBA works better with a keyboard and mouse, and fighting games work better with controllers, etc... ___ **TL;DR: I think you, like many people, expect VR to "revolutionize the industry" when, like any peripheral, it's just another way to control and experience a computer. It's an output device, not a magic wand. For simulators like flight sims and driving games, VR will probably be fantastic fun. For games like shooters and for gimmicks it probably won't be so good. But the same applies to any accessory.**

[gibusyoursandviches]

[STA-CITE]>6. **Novelty wears off for games** Play *Fallout3* or *Team Fortress* and it's pretty awesome for the first 10 minutes, but after that, you just want to play the damned game. Same thing happened with the 3DS. After 10 minutes, all the 3D would do is get in the way of the experience. You play a game to play a game, not to look around like a dumbass. At the end of the day, being able to jump in and out of a video game quickly and easily wins over my desire to stand there looking around like a dumbass. [END-CITE]This is where I disagree, have you seen VR demos and oculus rift game demos? The biggest problem I can see would be the break in immersion from trying to actually physically interact with virtual items and the world. Dude, I look around ALL the time in Fallout, you have to search through everything after all. Have you played or seen Eurotruck simulator? With a VR headset, and a steering wheel, you're all set to drive, oh and looking around while driving is a big portion of the game. The 3DS novelty wears off quick due to eye strain and looking away quickly. With a headset, it would be significantly more difficult to break immersion, without taking your headset off, so the novelty of virtual reality would last.

[MPixels]

Number 6: Ok, those games definitely aren't designed with VR in mind. Other games are. I recently played a tech demo for the Oculus Rift which was a sort of horror gallery. Pretty simple and full of jump scares but bloody hell it was immersive. Peering round corners and looking down at the floor, it really put me on edge. And the way it would **really** be great is flight sims and space combat/mech games. The immersion of "being in a real cockpit" would be bloody excellent.

[fatal__flaw]

I see any flight/space themes as weak. Seeing things that are far away takes away your frame of reference. You want close-in environments. Horror will probably work better than other things. Since you can't feel what's happening, like getting hit from behind, you have to break the virtuality of the experience to deal with these things (for example, turn the player around which may be disorienting, or display hud messages which breaks the virtual experience).

[MPixels]

I don't understand what your objection to cockpit immersion is. Either I explained it wrong or you explained your reply poorly. You do have a close-in environment, like a plane/spacecraft/mech cockpit. You can see keys & joysticks in the VR and see the walls around you in your peripheral vision, then look out the window to see the world around. [STA-CITE]> Since you can't feel what's happening [END-CITE]You can't feel what's happening without VR, so it's not really a specific disadvantage, is it? Nothing you're saying is anything that makes VR worse than non-VR. Just limited, like all gaming experiences are.

[NvNvNvNv]

[STA-CITE]> I don't understand what your objection to cockpit immersion is. Either I explained it wrong or you explained your reply poorly. You do have a close-in environment, like a plane/spacecraft/mech cockpit. You can see keys & joysticks in the VR and see the walls around you in your peripheral vision, then look out the window to see the world around. [END-CITE]But the cockpit is just clutter, the interesting objects would be far away, which means that the difference between stereo vision and standard single-camera vision would be barely noticeable.

[Randosity42]

Space flight games are not about looking at increasingly realistic representations of stars. The point of them is to simulate space flight, and it could be argued that the ultimate goal of that simulation is allowing the player to immerse themselves in the fiction.

[NvNvNvNv]

The interesting things would not be the stars (which would only constitute the background) but objects such as space stations and other spacecrafts. These would normally appear at a distance between hundred of meters to tens of kilometers. The effects of parallax between the two eyes on objects at such distances are pretty much negligible. Stereo vision becomes significant on objects that are relatively near (meters to tens of meters) the observer. That's why made-for-3D movies always include scenes where some object flyes "out" of the screen towards the audience. Without these kind of effects you could barely notice that you are watching with stereo vision.

[MPixels]

Yeah... now present an argument as to how this isn't incredibly immersive. "Clutter" isn't bad where immersion is concerned

[cdb03b]

You have never met anyone into the flight sim genre have you? What you are calling clutter is the reason they like it. The closer to real life it can look and operate the better it is for them.

[huadpe]

I think you greatly misidentify the type of people who enjoy flight sims. The sky and ground are the clutter to them. They're all about those knobs.

[ricebasket]

VR has been going strong in the niche market of therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_therapy since it first came around. It's wonderfully effective and isn't going anywhere any time soon. Definitely not a fad.

[fatal__flaw]

Therapy as well as serious games/training are areas where it'll probably stay. I'm talking about the mass consumer market instead. I'll clarify in the main post.

[Quadomatic23]

Games are a mass consumer market...

[keegan112099]

I think there's a market for it but it's not for shooters. I hate the idea that it's going to improve the shooter genre. Shooters are too fast paced too much moving my head around. Imagine if there was a game based around what you said about Paris, where you simply walk around gorgeous immersive environments. So far Walking Simulators and First Person Puzzle games are the best genres for virtual reality to thrive.

[fatal__flaw]

How would the walking around in Paris work? If it's a virtual Paris, like CG generated instead of the real one, I can understand, but it's hardly more compelling than what we have today outside of VR. Walking around in real Paris would be spectacular, but I don't see a way to make that happen.

[keegan112099]

I meant more of a GTA like game. An almost lifelike world could set the stage for a few interesting games to be set and stories to be told.

[Joseph-Joestar]

1. So, like a personal computer in 80's? 2. So, like a personal computer in 80's? 3. So, like a personal computer in 80's? etc Just because the technology is inferior at this very moment, can't address every issue with its usage and can't compete with everything at once, doesn't make it a bad product with no future. Some people thought movies were a fad a hundred years ago.

[jghaines]

[STA-CITE]> 1. So, like a personal computer in 80's? > 2. So, like a personal computer in 80's? > 3. So, like a personal computer in 80's? [END-CITE]I was going to say, like a flat-screen TV and games consoles in the 21st century.

[fatal__flaw]

The difference is that in the 80's there was a clear path to success. We were able to calculate exactly when each push in technology was going to be compelling. We knew how to solve the problems and get to the goals, all we had to do is wait for the technology to get powerful enough and to propagate enough. VR, in contrast, has no clear path to resolve these issues. We can't see where or how the solutions will come from. It's pure blind faith - religion - at this point, to think it will *somehow* happen.

[FlyntFlossy912]

[STA-CITE]> The difference is that in the 80's there was a clear path to success....We knew how to solve the problems and get to the goals, all we had to do is wait for the technology to get powerful enough and to propagate enough. [END-CITE]You're correct here, we don't have to wait as long for these goals now when compared to the past. It's because we are creating more now than ever before. We don't have to wait as long and that's why the 80's VR failed, there just wasn't enough technology to support it. [STA-CITE]>VR, in contrast, has no clear path to resolve these issues. We can't see where or how the solutions will come from. It's pure blind faith - religion - at this point, to think it will somehow happen. [END-CITE]Of course there are no clear goals in mind, these are literally the *first* iterations of modern day VR. Have you tried VR before? The ones now have incredible simulation capabilities in a decently priced package. As time chugs on, they will only get cheaper and the quality will only get better. It's not really blind faith, they have a pretty big spectrum of uses.

[beerybeardybear]

You're projecting. That *you* don't know how VR will be successful does *not* imply that people who actually think about it don't.

[fatal__flaw]

I just watched a youtube video with John Carmack and Michael Abrash saying basically that they don't see a path to resolving some of these issues. Specifically, the optics and controller issues.

[cdb03b]

No, there was not a clear path to success. That is you applying the path taken as being clear after the fact.

[fatal__flaw]

There's a difference between making a something we already have go a little faster, and coming up with a completely new paradigm out of thin air. Processors, for example, followed Moor's Law quite nicely and predictably at the time. We roughly knew how powerful they would be in 10 years. Inventing a new control system for VR, figuring a new display technology, or inventing new software applications that dont exist now (among many other things), has an unpredictable, indeterminate outcome.

[babblemammal]

Youre telling me that you seriously believe that all the uses of personal computers and home gaming consoles were predictable and determined in advance? There are clear uses for vr technology right now, with the current technology: medical imaging, gaming, and military training programs. Between those three alone there will be enough growth that it will enter other areas at some point.

[Cavemonster]

Just for clarification, do you mean it's destined to fail forever? Or simply that it won't catch on in the near future? Most of your technical qualms are things that increased power, engineering and miniaturization will take on in the near future. If hardware designers think it's a priority, then we aren't too far away from wireless VR goggles that aren't much bigger than regular sunglasses, so bulky isn't an issue. As for control, we're already going down the path with kinect that you can use your body as a control. For FPS, hold the gun and pull the trigger. What's better than that? As for expensive and confining. The cost will go down when it becomes popular. The same thing that happens with every broad entertainment technology. And gaming is already a confined activity. People don't mind sitting on their couches or at desks to play games. It's wildly popular. That, as far as I can see, takes care of #1 and #5. Maybe not tomorrow or next year, but within a decade if people put research into it, almost certainly. As for #2, you could say the same thing about any number of wildly popular technologies. Some grandparents love their smartphones and facebook, some have no idea what they do. I don't see VR as meaningfully different from a lot of technologies that have thrived in that regard. As for #3 and #4, I agree, concerts and chat won't be huge markets for VR. I don't think this kills the technology, it's focus is more likely to be games and other kinds of entertainment. For #6 I thought the same thing about 3d movies, but they seem to be here to stay. The novelty may wear off, but the pleasure of the experience isn't fully reliant on novelty. Adding quality 3d vision to games gives players a better appreciation for the physical space their avatar is occupying, alowing depth and distance to become more of a factor. It also makes environments more immersive. Snow swirls around you etc etc. The 3ds was a novelty because it used 3d mostly as a novelty. A more powerful system can use it to real effect. I may share your view that technology that's rolling out right now isn't going to make a huge market impact, but I feel fairly certain that we'll see another push in the fairly near future when technological advancement has ironed the kinks that make VR problematic now.

[fatal__flaw]

I'd say for the next 30 years or so. You can add all the power you want to it, virtual presence would still be crappy. When I Skype I use a lot of hand gestures and expressions and I can read the other person well by looking at them. There's a limit to how small you can make the headsets. There's a problem with optics, that is unfixable, that won't allow bringing the screen much closer to the eyes. One solution is to either beam the visual information straight into the eyeball, or highjack the optic nerve. Both solutions are 20-30 years away or more. Kinect is a poor controller, as we've seen. If I play a video game, I want to play a video game. Sit in my chair/couch, passively hold the controller on my hands, and play away. Moving about while blind to the outside world is bad. Shooting my hand like it was a gun is terrible - there's no feedback to it, and it's awkward. How do I walk forward or run? I don't see #2 getting better if the technology can't be made more accessible, and as I've said, that's 30 years away. 3D movies are already on the decline, I believe. I can't remember when was the last time I watched a 3D movie and I see fewer and fewer screens offering them. I don't see anyone buying 3D tvs. Everyone keeps saying, "as soon as someone builds some cool game made specifically for VR, it's going to kick ass", but no one can say what that would be.

[babblemammal]

When you combine it with this: http://www.gizmag.com/ioptik-ar-contact-lens-ces/30310/ there doesnt seem to be a problem with the size

[HumpRAWR]

On the Skype thing. When two people meet up with head tracking, you've already got a lot of those movements back. If you had a Kinect, you would have VR Skype.

[nllpntr]

[STA-CITE]> How do I walk forward or run? [END-CITE]There are currently at least two products that deal with this already in production. Stationary pads with a harness that allow a good deal of walking/runnung movement in all directions, and one that let's you slide into a sitting position to drive cars in GTA. It's early and crude, but a sign of progress.

[Darchseraph]

Even if I accept your argument that it's not happening *right now*. 30 years is a very pessimistic view. Look at computing power and digital display technology in the mid-80s and look at it now. Even if we aren't quite there yet in terms of miniaturization and convenience I give it 10-15 years *max*. EDIT: Also the latest space flight sim games (Star Citizen, Elite: Dangerous, Eve: Valkyrie) are supposed to be pretty freaking sweet to play in VR.

[Cavemonster]

[STA-CITE]>You can add all the power you want to it, virtual presence would still be crappy. When I Skype I use a lot of hand gestures and expressions and I can read the other person well by looking at them. [END-CITE]I don't see many people pushing VR as a skype replacement. So the fact that it isn't great at that isn't any more relevant than the fact that it can't make waffles. [STA-CITE]>There's a limit to how small you can make the headsets. There's a problem with optics, that is unfixable, that won't allow bringing the screen much closer to the eyes. One solution is to either beam the visual information straight into the eyeball, or highjack the optic nerve. Both solutions are 20-30 years away or more. [END-CITE]You may be right, I don't know much about the optics issue, but there's a product on the market right now thats just a little bigger than a pair of ski goggle, the Samsung Gear VR. And right now it uses a phone as a screen. It can be smaller and lighter if the same design uses a dedicated screen and wireless to access content. http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-gear-vr-headset-now-has-price-199 [STA-CITE]>Kinect is a poor controller, as we've seen. If I play a video game, I want to play a video game. Sit in my chair/couch, passively hold the controller on my hands, and play away. Moving about while blind to the outside world is bad. Shooting my hand like it was a gun is terrible - there's no feedback to it, and it's awkward. [END-CITE]Active controllers are popular. They may not be your favorite thing, but wii and kinect have a strong audience. As for the risks of moving without seeing the outside world, you don't need to be kicking and flailing your limbs. It can read small movements. You can even sit on a couch and move almost little as you do with a controller and still have motion capture tech read you. It's getting more and more responsive. The feedback for using your hand as a gun is the onscreen action of your gun shooting. [STA-CITE]>3D movies are already on the decline, I believe. I can't remember when was the last time I watched a 3D movie and I see fewer and fewer screens offering them. I don't see anyone buying 3D tvs. [END-CITE]3D movies are declining because they built an unnatural bubble, using 3d where there was no reason to. For some films though, there's not much going back. I don't think we'll see a major studio 3d animated feature that **isn't** released on 3d screens.

[EyeHamKnotYew]

The difference between now and the 90s is processing power. I doubt it will fail but I dont think it will be huge. That is unless it takes off in the porn market.

[fatal__flaw]

Ah, forgot about porn! Since porn is probably a clear win, I wonder if there will be a stigma in owning a VR set. "Do you have a VR set?"... *blushes deep red*..."um, yeah...I use them for...a thing"

[its_good]

You laugh, but I think porn has been attributed as the reason vhs won out over betamax, and certainly a driver for improving bandwidth on the internet. (At an unnamed university I had worked for it was estimated that at any time 30% of the internet traffic coming from the dorms was porn).

[EyeHamKnotYew]

So I have CYV?

[fatal__flaw]

At first I thought it was too speculative to give a delta for this at this point but I'd say a niche market like this could keep VR around. I award you a delta ∆

[LucasBlueCat]

What is cyv?

[fayryover]

changed your view

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/EyeHamKnotYew. [^EyeHamKnotYew's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/eyehamknotyew) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)