What Went Wrong With Virtual Reality? (bbc.com) 214
An anonymous reader shares a report: "When I put in the earpieces and goggles the first time it was crazy - it feels so believable," says Anna Taylor, 32, of her visit to a virtual reality (VR) arcade. "The whole experience of being immersed in a compelling virtual world is incredible." Anna has since visited the east London arcade many times, at first alone and then with others. But despite her enthusiasm for gaming, she won't be buying her own virtual reality headset. "I wouldn't invest in buying virtual reality applications for home," she explains. "It's fine to play more of a basic game when you are playing with other people, [and] because it's brand new there are more layers of excitement. But when you're [playing] on your own, you want the quality you are used to." As a keen gamer, Anna should be part of the core audience for at-home VR entertainment. But her lack of interest is pretty common, and it means that virtual reality headsets have yet to take off.
Many big name adopters have abandoned their VR projects. Google recently halted sales of Daydream, its VR headset, admitting that "there just hasn't been the broad consumer or developer adoption we had hoped." Meanwhile, the BBC has announced it is ending the funding for its VR hub, less than two years after it was founded. VR received very little attention at CES, the annual trade show for consumer electronics, which got underway this week. However, PlayStation did announce it has sold five million VR headsets since launch in 2016.
Many big name adopters have abandoned their VR projects. Google recently halted sales of Daydream, its VR headset, admitting that "there just hasn't been the broad consumer or developer adoption we had hoped." Meanwhile, the BBC has announced it is ending the funding for its VR hub, less than two years after it was founded. VR received very little attention at CES, the annual trade show for consumer electronics, which got underway this week. However, PlayStation did announce it has sold five million VR headsets since launch in 2016.
Same as 3D (Score:4, Insightful)
VR and 3D suffer the same fate. It caters to a subset of a subset of the market. yeah, it is totally awesome and cool... IN THEORY.
But there is no experience for the casual people, or the onlookers, the spectators, etc.
"experiences" that take up 100% of people's attention just wont work in today's environment. We swap between watching TV, checking messages on our phones, getting up to go do things, and what not. We are multi-tasking people in society, but 3D and Vr demand 100% attention, therefor they just don't co-exist with the overwhelming vast majority of people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Same as 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Same as 3D (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As said, screens are big enough, we also have retina projection systems so the head system is going to become unnecessary at some point. However, except for a few very niche products (eg. initial training sessions for prepping into more expensive simulators), current "VR systems" are either insufficient, inconvenient or don't have the capacity or content. If you're already going to spend thousands of dollars on a simulator system, might as well go with additional screens, appropriate seats and system contro
Re: (Score:3)
I already have more screens around my computer than I usually turn on.
VR wouldn't be a good replacement because I would no longer be able to see out the window. That would discourage me from even putting it on.
I'm rarely actually looking out the window, but having it there is comforting. When I want to look outside, there it is! Right away. No special effort required.
Re: (Score:3)
> I don't think I agree. I've wanted a serious, virtual desktop for my computers for over a decade.
Yes.
> Virtual monitors that wrap around me and can be positioned to accommodate my workflow.
YES!
> Possibly even virtual keyboards and mice/trackballs.
Oh, big no there Chief. Virtual keyboards or controls without any tactile feedback are where I think VR has real problems. Mapping a real keyboard to the VR environment is the way to go. I see problems with even simple virtual controls in playing a ga
Re: Same as 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
I think VR will become a very powerful tool for architecture and engineering. It's pretty remarkable to examine a machine in VR in great detail, which might not yet exist at all in the real world. We bought a VR rig for the sole purpose of modeling some expensive home renovations. Right there it paid for itself. Very quickly we could experience what the space would really be like, and that it would work. When it was all done it was exactly like we knew it would be, since we saw it in VR many times during the design phase. And the only tools we're using are Sketchup and a free (well used to be free) sketchup viewer in VR.
Since then we've done sketchup models for several houses that people wanting to build and in each case it proved a very useful tool for showing what would work, and helping the home owners to decide what features they wanted.
Don't have any interest in the games.
It's about effective information transmission (Score:3)
So what VR and 3D are trying to do is take dimensionless information, convert i
Re: Same as 3D (Score:2)
speak for yourself.
the â200 odd euro I spent on the PSVR headset is probably my favourite purchase ever.
"lets fly to space" like a giggling kid.
https://youtu.be/pSfiDew-4JQ [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
â200 odd euro I spent
Is that supposed to be 10200 or 8200?
Re:Same as 3D (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same as 3D (Score:5, Insightful)
VR and 3D suffer the same fate. It caters to a subset of a subset of the market.
Definitely true, though that's not necessarily the same thing as them being unprofitable. It just puts a limit on how big they can get.
"experiences" that take up 100% of people's attention just wont work in today's environment. We swap between watching TV, checking messages on our phones, getting up to go do things, and what not. We are multi-tasking people in society, but 3D and Vr demand 100% attention, therefor they just don't co-exist with the overwhelming vast majority of people's lives.
Uh, what? So movie theaters, non-mobile video games, concerts, books, etc are all things of the past because you have to use 100% of your attention while you're doing them? That makes no sense and is clearly not true.
Honestly, nothing at all went wrong with virtual reality. It was over-hyped like every other niche novelty and continues to exist and be improved on for those interested in it. VR headset developers who thought the market would be bigger than it is were simply wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't a market at all.
Re:Same as 3D (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, nothing at all went wrong with virtual reality.
This. VR has seen a Y-Y doubling in sales since Oculus hit the market. It's very clearly still in a growth phase. Also unless you're an early adopter I do not recommend you get a VR headset. The technology is a frigging moving target. In the past year alone there's been four massive changes:
1) Introduction of high quality headsets with inside out tracking (Rift S)
2) Introduction of capable mobile headsets rendering those silly cardboard things and GearVR obsolete.
3) Introduction of multiple really high end headsets that make the Rift S look like a bit of a toy in comparison.
4) Announcements and delivery of really well funded and well made VR only games.
Re:Same as 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
VR and 3D suffer the same fate. It caters to a subset of a subset of the market. yeah, it is totally awesome and cool... IN THEORY.
Since when are emotional reactions theoretical? What does this even mean?
Someone either thought something was awesome and cool or stupid and lame there is no theory involved.
But there is no experience for the casual people
This is unfortunately backwards. There is a glut of VR software for casual people anyone can use with no prior experience.
, or the onlookers, the spectators, etc.
Most people play in a room by themselves while nobody else has any interest in what's on the screen.
In fact there are more smartphone gamers than console gamers where it is not even possible for onlookers and spectators to exist.
This industry has gone out of its way to systematically deny split screen and LAN play to gamers and have paid next to nothing for it.
"experiences" that take up 100% of people's attention just wont work in today's environment. We swap between watching TV, checking messages on our phones, getting up to go do things, and what not. We are multi-tasking people in society, but 3D and Vr demand 100% attention, therefor they just don't co-exist with the overwhelming vast majority of people's lives.
People can't multitask for shit and when they try the results are always piss poor. Games you multi-task are lame ass grinding games with boring mindless mechanics.
There are software solutions that bring arbitrary applications into VR. You can "watch TV" and play VR at the same time if that's what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
" There is a glut of VR software for casual people anyone can use with no prior experience."
I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by casual here. By "casual" I think you mean there are lots of trite and simplistic games, which is true.
But to play even those you pretty much have to go off by yourself, put on dedicated-purpose-vr-hardware, and engage with the VR and nothing else. That's not "casual engagement" that's pretty seriously focused engagement.
The fact that after getting someone to seriously focusing on the engagement that they are faced with a glut of trite simplistic games is, if
Re:Same as 3D (Score:4, Informative)
There was VR and 3D in the 90's too. The primary problem is and remains the quality. It is exhausting not just physically but also mentally to stay immersed in the world. The quality is just not there, both audio and video but also the software, there is to my knowledge no compelling content right now that I would want to see in 3D or VR because the existing screen and audio setup typically is sufficiently immersive (how many of you are actually aware of your surroundings when playing a compelling game or movie).
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, it is totally awesome and cool... IN THEORY.
So, most people don't stop here to check if they're understanding things the same way. Everything past this point is people talking past each other.
The actual use case for VR that is totally awesome and cool in theory is sex. VR sex. If it only has sound and vision, it is not the cool thing that the public actually is imagining when they talk about VR being "totally awesome and cool in theory."
If they're just picturing a 3d game, the average person doesn't describe that as "totally awesome and cool," more l
Re: Same as 3D (Score:2)
IDK, every 3Dtv I got had a whole set of the special glasses I put away in a cabinet somewhere. We tried it with diablo 3 couch coop on PlayStation and the tv's magic auto-3D crap turned in just to see what the effect would be. It would be pretty damned cool actually if the PS4 and games were made for 3D, that is an easily shared experience, the glasses are real lightweight. That's all we ever did with it, and shelved the glasses and sync thing they use, but I'd still be using it if the games actually se
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to disagree.
> But there is no experience for the casual people, or the onlookers, the spectators, etc.
A lot of games fall into that category as well. When I'm playing a game any onlooker who doesn't understand the minutiae of the game itself quickly become bored or simply don't understand the game much at all. Same for me, I can watch hockey, I can watch football or basketball, or even something like Rocket League and appreciate the plays for what they are, but despite playing a ton of FPSs ov
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am fortunate with my PSVR (so far) as I don't need my glasses with it. Tho I really only need to use them when I read small text up close. I have been a PC gamer for decades, tho my graphics card is outdated by at least 6 years now, while my gaming habit has reduced a lot. Now I am spending more time with No Mans Sky in PSVR, and can easily immerse myself in that for 2 or 3 hours at a time.
There are a few PS titles which get me out of my chair and waving my arms around like a mad man, and yes, y
Re: (Score:2)
> There are a few PS titles which get me out of my chair and waving my arms around like a mad man, and yes, you do need a reasonable clear space for this to work. With NMS tho, I sit in a swivel chair and have all the range of motion I need.
There are a couple you can sit down for on the PC, I mentioned in another comment Ultrawings, that is a lot of fun though the virtual controls are a bit tiring after a while - holding your virtual "hand" on a virtual flight stick in the air about a foot in front of yo
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue is having the space for it. Often VR requires a good bit of open space and setting up sensors around the spot you'll use it in. This is been my issue with VR since the prices dropped to around the cost of a game console for a headset. My PC lives in my office which is full of stuff and isn't large to begin with. It's an oddly shaped 15x10 foot space in a corner of my house. I need a 5x5 foot space for most VR kits, but that is a hard fit when the room is a 'L' shape.
I have space in my living r
Public masturbation of 730548 (Score:3)
Z^-1
Problem with VR is that the real world remains (Score:5, Interesting)
A reason why VR works for commercial things like arcades or The Void, but doesn't gain much traction at home is that home setups are just too varied, and most people don't really have room for a VR space.
When I want to use a VR headset, I have to move a small table out of the way to have enough space. It's not a massive effort, but it's enough that I don't use VR very often.
I think augmented reality will take off in the way that VR was hoped to, because it truly can be used in any home - you can still see where real world things are, whatever game you are playing you can work around them (and the game may make use of them). But AR is a much harder problem, so it will take some time to get something really good going...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm gaming at home, I'm not just gaming. Got kids, pets, spouse? You may need to interact with them
What kind of an excuse is that? If you got kids pets and a spouse the answer is to ignore the pet and let the spouse look after the kids for the short time when you're trying to unwind.
Do you not have any alone time at all? Sounds horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Working around real-life objects is also one of its biggest limitations. It works well for ARG style games but not so much for fantasy where you're trying to create something completely different. The "huh, this space ship bridge is laid out exactly like my living room" has a certain novelty factor that will probably wear off pretty quickly.
I'd still be excited to see what kinds of games can be done in AR, which will probably be quite different from traditional games. Although I'm not getting on board until
Re: (Score:2)
and most people don't really have room for a VR space.
Nope, most people only think they do. Hell my most played VR game in the past three weeks has been played without getting out of my chair. The overwhelming majority of games can be catered for in a small apartment. If you can stand in one spot and swing your arms around without hitting anything, you have enough space for 90% of the games out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I've owned a couple of VR headsets (Vive and WMR) I never use. What would make me invest in a new VR setup is 300 Hz seamless frame rate, 8k resolution, full field of view, wireless operation and much more immersive controllers like gloves with haptic feedback. AR would be attractive if it fit in a pair of normal looking comfortable eyeglasses with decent battery life.
Eventually we'll see AR take off once someone figures out how to put all this into a contact lens.
Simple... (Score:2)
.
We need a holodeck to convey the VR, not goggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goggles isolate you...
I'm not a gamer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
For sure, the goggles are immersive: that's the benefit. And for sure, to be immersive, they will isolate your from your actual physical reality. It seems like that's the point.
Not being a gamer, I would have thought the fun would be to have two players with goggles but both experiencing the same virtual environment. You should be able to see and talk to each other in the VR, right? And even more ideally, you would't need to be physically close to each
Simple: (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't want shit on their face.
Jeebus, look at the popularity of LASIK for some data on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Manufacturers also need to incorporate some damned fans into the thing to get air movement through the space between your face and the lenses, oy.
Re: (Score:2)
another million dollar idea down the drain! (Score:2)
Re: Simple: (Score:2)
People don't want shit on their face.
That's why they often use plastic wrap. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
People don't want shit on their face.
Nope, you don't want shit on your face. On the other hand most of the headsets on the market are forgettable, as in you forget you're wearing them after a minute, and based on market stats it seems every year twice as many people decide to go out and buy shit for their faces than the year before.
Re: Simple: (Score:2)
So what, now 11 people have VR headsets instead of 5?
The stated
trend indicates increasing interest, not success.
And, in fact, I wear eyeglasses (since last I checked, LASIK could do pretty well, but couldn't always get you to the level of correction that a good pair of specs can).
As someone who likes properly-fitted facewear OK, I can still imagine that not everyone else has my tastes, desires and motivators.
People have said that wearing tech shit on your face was the next big thing for 30-40 years.
Different Planet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way people talked about Wii sports and Kinect.
Check back and see if you're still playing beat saber a year from now.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it didn't "go wrong", it hasn't failed, it's following a pretty normal adoption curve for what is essentially an entirely new technology. It's basically at the same stage as early TVs: too expensive for everyone to have one, too limited content for everyone to really want one, and too primitive for everyone to even be interested in it. In ten to twenty years or so they'll be slimmed down to the point where they're a few hundred dollars for a glasses-format headset with near-retina resolution, and then
Re: (Score:2)
Still too expensive for what you get. And then you still have to have an expensive computer setup to make it work well. I spend way too much time playing computer games but I'm to price conscience to spend the kind of money you needed for the GFX cards initially. And even now you need a card that costs around $300 or more. That puts a pretty stringent limit on the market size for these headsets. Even provided you have all the hardware to make it work there is the matter of whether or not it'll be supported
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still too expensive for what you get.
Huh? Here's a list of things more expensive on my PC than my VR headset: .... Oh that's right, middle range gaming monitor.
- CPU
- RAM
- GPU
I'm forgetting something
VR headsets are only expensive if you don't play games. Otherwise it's a perfectly affordable accessory, one which costs less than the 3DFX Voodoo did. But that 3D gaming thing will never take off right?
but I'm to price conscience to spend the kind of money you needed for the GFX cards initially.
You're too price conscious to pay zero dollars? You don't need a PC at all for one of the more popular headsets on the market. Or are you too price
Re: (Score:2)
You are obviously spending far more on your PC than most people do. That isn't derogatory but it speaks to the fact that VR headsets are expensive accessories with limited use case. It is much like those force feedback steering wheels and pedal sets. They are cool and work well for their purpose but how many people do you know that have and use them regularly. Even if you spend big on the other components you list, those components get used for practically everything you do on that PC.
GFX card prices do app
Re: (Score:2)
With the feedback steering wheel and pedals VR racing is fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a niche gimmick and always will be (Score:2)
What more is there to say? A handful of people like it. Most don't care.
The novelty wears off fast, and all that remains is the headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Scrap that "always will be", and I'll agree.
Virtual reality has real potential, but they need to get actual haptic feedback, which probably means a body suit and a frame. And there needs to be some way to deal with the semi-circular canals so people don't get seasick.
Oh, and it needs to be cheaper to generate decent episodes that aren't pre-scripted. Which probably means rapid generation of environments. And I suspect that people wouldn't like the same kind of environment as an actual experience as they
No shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The screen door effect is terribly annoying and none of the mainstream headset makers even care. I donâ(TM)t know they are blind or what, they think itâ(TM)s no big deal.
VR needs to have these minimum specs:
5K per eye â" or equivalent if its like hololens thats fine
110 degree fov (mainstream is already at this for oled/lcd based headsets)
120 fps
200 grams or less (Panasonicâ(TM)s latest demo headset was only 150g)
Re: (Score:3)
The screen door effect is terribly annoying and none of the mainstream headset makers even care.
Errr WTF man, the mainstream headset makers are falling over each other to fix that very problem introducing progressively higher resolution displays and experimenting with different display layouts to get rid of this very problem.
5K per eye â" or equivalent
And I wan't a pony. No I don't really because the screen door effect is quite unobtrusive at 1440p and basically invisible at 1600p. No need for some pie in the sky requirement unless you're hyper sensitive or something. And if you are then VR probably won't be for you in your lif
Things that went wrong with VR 'reboot' (Score:2)
Re: Things that went wrong with VR 'reboot' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Things that went wrong with VR 'reboot' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Zuckerberg was permitted to acquire Oculus, subverting the momentum for a new technological paradigm to be a Facebook asset.
The time underwhich has seen Oculus drive a massive increase in VR marketshare for PCVR away from PSVR, and has seen the Oculus headsets explode in popularity with more than double Y-Y growth.
I hate Facebook, but claiming that this had any influence in adoption of Oculus is simply not at all represented in the adoption data.
2) Glasses. Seriously, wearing a VR headset over a pair of corrective vision eyeglasses varies from uncomfortable to actually painful.
This is a problem. One that the market has solved: https://vroptician.com/ [vroptician.com] Just get the correction lenses put in your VR headset. They can do +10 -16.
3) Poor standardization/compatibility. I remember being so excited to try Subnautica's VR support only to discover they couldn't be bothered to implement game controls via the Rift's Touch controllers.
This is a problem for any new develo
In a few words (Score:2)
- Fragmented: Each manufacturer has their own ideas on how to generate the VR environment and usually they are incompatible;
- Very little content: There are only a few games that look good on VR and there aren't enough of them to justify spending on VR equipment (which as described earlier is quite expensive);
- Single user only: In most cases it is not possible for more than one person to participate in the game/experience (as it would nee
Re: (Score:2)
VR games do have one very notable thing in common with non-VR games: There are many good games, but you have to wade through a sea of rushed, broken, awful, often formulaic games to find them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do better! (Score:2)
Logistics (Score:2)
What went wrong?
It's the logistics. While you can simulate a virtual, 360 degree world visually, there's no way to extend that simulation physically without breaking immersion. You can see 360 degrees, but you can't move 360 degrees. The physical space required to play most ideal VR games is much larger than the footprint required for traditional gaming as well. Plus there's the fact that the equipment itself is still rather bulky and still requires a fairly beefy computer to run the games.
VR is good for a certain subs
lack of apps (Score:2)
Then you've got something. Otherwise it's just like 3d tv - Cool! for 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The word you are looking for is: killer app.
e.g. glQuake was THE killer app for 3Dfx cards.
There are no killer apps for VR (yet.) Ae there some really cool games? Yes simulations / experience such as BBC's Space Walk is really cool but lack of good, compelling "must have" apps and games are STILL missing.
It also didn't help that Oculus completely bailed on Linux and macOS support.
Nausea is never a good "selling" point of VR. =P
Nothing (Score:3)
Nothing went wrong...it simply isn't good enough yet. But inevitably the sets will get lighter, will get cheaper, and will have higher resolution. I imagine VR/AR will slowly grow more and more of an audience, until 10 years or so from now the tech is good enough for it to be popular with everybody. Rumor is Apple is working on AR glasses for consumers in 3 years, maybe it will happen then.
I personally own an Insta360 One x (a 360 camera) and an Oculus Go. While there's obvious room to improve, videos are startling. It's like being there. The tech is simply too good to not be popular, if done right. And it also seems reasonable (given trends in cell phones) that the technology will get there before too long, even if there isn't large VR-specific R&D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is correct. We are only just now reaching the point of affordable *standalone* headsets. Up until this point we've had two options: "Dumb" headsets like the Oculus Rift that had to be physically plugged in to a (rather high end) PC, or hacks where you put a phone in a headeset. The latter doesn't even count for proper VR for a host of reasons.
Now, you have things like the Oculus Quest and Oculus Go that provide 100% standalone VR. I believe a ton of these were sold this last Christmas. I know t
Nothing went wrong (Score:2)
I still have my Nintendo VR Boy and 10 or so games.
The new VR/AR headsets have more colors and are more immersive, but basically just the same.
Anna Is The Wrong Audience (Score:3)
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple It's not there. (yet, I'd say. I think it eventually WILL be.)
Price vs performance = perceived value.
Right now prices are high.
Performance is - compared to 2d monitors - really shitty.
Further, because performance is shitty, the games, etc that are available to play on it are ludicrously dumb: the modern-day equivalent of pong. Give me a system that for sub$1000 can run WoW in 4k resolution (AFAIK I've seen some fan-made hacks that sort of work)? There's your killer app.
Let's be honest: today porn drives nearly all entertainment electronics. Until guys feel it's worth using for a wank, it's not to the point where it will be anything but a boutique piece of gadgetry.
Re: (Score:3)
Price vs performance = perceived value.
The big problem with that equation is people's idea of performance. There's a lot of people who think some very 2016 era ideas about the the current generation of headsets. You can see that in these very replies, people claiming that they are insanely expensive (they are cheaper than a 120Hz gaming monitor, cheaper than any calibrated graphics monitor, cheaper than most 4k monitors), people claiming you need a massively expensive graphics card (A GTX1060 is more than fine unless you want to crank your quali
Perspective (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're just not there yet. (Score:2)
Market viable VR needs better computing power, less burdensome interface, better power efficiency, many content creators, and a market to bear the cost of both. The tech just isn't there yet.
Just wait (Score:2)
Still too expensive (Score:2)
Elite Dangerous (Score:2)
Everyone went ape shit over the games where you stand up and flail around. It reminds me of what happened with the Wii and how all the games were wiggle-waggle bullshit that didn't make any innovative use of the new technology. Nonsense for babies where you just wag your controller at something on the screen.
The only actual VR game that does anything useful with the technology at all is Elite Dangerous.
Sandwich (Score:2)
This already failed in the 1990s for anyone old enough to remember [wikipedia.org]. As my "sandwich" buddy put it then, it's just video games really close to your face.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinions (Score:2)
Things I feel current VR headset offerings generally lack, but could benefit from:
Higher display resolutions (possibly exceeding 8MP per eye) and improved optics to allow filling of macular vision across the entire range of eye movement
Re: (Score:3)
To address these with an alternate opinion (at least in some cases):
- Higher resolution displays: Have a go a Steam Index if you can. It's only a 1600p display but after using it you'll realise how little you actually need anything much higher. The 1440p displays are already pretty damn good an IMO not really holding the technology back.
- Peripheral vision: CES announcements as well as the recent release of the Index shows that FOV is indeed a focus for developers. The Rift S (most popular headset on the ma
Re: (Score:2)
This won't age well... (Score:2)
Sorry to state the obvious . . . (Score:2)
Regular Reality (Score:2)
Answer: Nothing (Score:2)
It's a new technology that is following the usual technological growth path: Linear during early development, exponential during its market ready phase, and then tapering when mature.
The market between 2015-2018 has been linear. Assuming that the spike this year is not a fluke (there have been a lot of enhancements this year which has driven up sales by means of newer hardware and major game announcements) 2019 is the first year that may represent exponential growth.
What went wrong? Nothing. (Score:3)
From the numbers I'm looking at (Super Data Research / Statista) the US VR market revenue was...
220 million in 2016
530 million in 2017
1160 million in 2018
2450 million in 2019
That might not be "devices in every home, everyone using it for everything, exponential growth across all sectors" that some pundits promised, but we knew they were lying anyway. The market is growing fairly well, and has some clear industry winners and losers. After all, Daydream was not the success it was expected to be, but Oculus Go (based on similar tech) and Oculus Quest (a beefier rendition of that tech) have both been surprisingly successful. In fact, part of why Daydream is dead is because 3DOF headsets are very limiting, and doing more than that on a non-dedicated device is a problem.
Beat Saber and Job Simulator have both gone platinum... And that isn't even talking about CAD-style work and BIM walk-throughs: there is room here for real businesses doing real things.
It's simple really... (Score:2)
Current 3D goggle tech is horribly broken because it can't handle the conflict between accommodation (focus distance of the eye) and convergence.
Our brains can't really cope with these conflicting signals, so people react badly: they get vertigo, nausea, headaches etc... which get worse the longer you use it.
It's the same reason 3D movies and TV have never been more than a marketing gimmick.
I tried an Occulus once for about an hour, before it made me feel so sick I had to take it off. Afterwards I felt hung
Easy answer (Score:2)
No one wanted to look like Palmer Luckey in that Time cover.
Needs phyiscal feedback (Score:2)
I bought a GearVR for $50 and played with it a bit. It was okay. I tried a couple games where I sat around and "looked" at stuff.
If I could buy gloves to allow my hands to do stuff and also had a empty spare bedroom to move around in, that would be pretty amazing. Just using a controller just feels like watching something in 3d. Cool a time or two then you get bored.
I did strongly consider Occulus Quest. One store in San Diego was demoing it during Christmas. I decided not to go because I could only really
Re: (Score:2)