Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Technology

Carmack: 'There's a Bunch That I'm Grumpy About' in Virtual Reality (arstechnica.com) 78

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Last year, former Oculus CTO (and current company advisor) John Carmack threw down the gauntlet for Meta's near-term metaverse plans. By the 2022 Meta Connect conference, Carmack said last October, he hoped he'd be in his headset, "walking around the [virtual] halls or walking around the stage as my avatar in front of thousands of people getting the feed across multiple platforms." Carmack's vision didn't come to pass Tuesday, as a jerky and awkward Carmack avatar gave one of his signature, hour-long unscripted talks amid a deserted VR space, broadcast out as plain old 2D video on Facebook.

"Last year I said that I'd be disappointed if we weren't having Connect in Horizon this year," Carmack said by way of introduction. "This here, this isn't really what I meant. Me being an avatar on-screen on a video for you is basically the same thing as [just] being on a video." That set the tone for a presentation in which Carmack said that "there's a bunch that I'm grumpy about" regarding the current state of Meta's current VR hardware and software. While that grumpiness was somewhat tempered with talk of recent improvements and hope for the future of virtual reality, Carmack seemed generally frustrated with the direction Meta as a whole is taking its VR efforts.

[...] Carmack also seemed skeptical that the $1,499, feature-laden Quest Pro was the right product for Meta to be focusing on at this time. "I've always been clear that I'm all about the cost-effective mass-market headsets being the most important thing for us and for the adoption of VR," Carmack said. "And Quest Pro is definitely not that..." As a "counterpoint" to the push for the Quest Pro in the Meta offices, Carmack says he "personally still [tries] to drum up interest internally in this vision of a super cheap, super lightweight headset." His rallying cry, he says, is a target of "$250 and 250 grams" for a headset that cuts out as many extraneous features as possible while still being usable (the Quest Pro weighs 722 grams while the Quest 2 is 503 grams). That could help bring "super light comforts" to "more people at low-end price points. We're not building that headset today, but I keep trying," Carmack said with some exasperation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carmack: 'There's a Bunch That I'm Grumpy About' in Virtual Reality More

Carmack: 'There's a Bunch That I'm Grumpy About' in Virtual Reality

Comments Filter:

  • Oh, Zuck... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by damacus ( 827187 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @11:13AM (#62962893) Homepage

    So they took what Carmack said and did the opposite. Instead of light and cheap, they went for the Cadillac. Sounds more like Zuck wanted a fancy toy and insisted on his way. I don't doubt there's a place for the Quest Pro in the marketplace - maybe even an important one for specific use cases - but I get Carmack's frustration.

    I mean if nothing else, I guess the Quest Pro is still cheaper than the HoloLens, but MSFT is getting that government money for defense and other industrial uses. Meta is trying to do VR second life as the primary focus, with, "it also games" (while most consumers mostly just want the entertainment side.. I don't think there's a lot of native demand to loiter in VR environments...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Are you aware Meta also produces other headsets that don't contain the word "Pro" in their name that cost significantly less?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      No, they went for the Kia, and put a Cadillac badge on it to try and make it look like a luxury item.

      The problem overall is that , there is no metaverse. There is no web3

      Everyone pushing this garbage has been so disconnected and oblivious to the grift of "oh who does this benefit?" question that literately nobody who matters would invest in anything. The word "metaverse" is now a toxic keyword, along with NFT and cryptocoin.

      VRChat is eating meta's lunch. People don't even know what Meta's 3d world is called

  • From TFA:

    What’s the opposite of Quest Pro?

    Carmack also seemed skeptical that the $1,499, feature-laden Quest Pro was the right product for Meta to be focusing on at this time.

    Easy, Google's Cardboard [wikipedia.org]. Cost is almost zero, and weigth is basically that of your smartphone (an iPhone 14 is less than 180g).

    • My cellphone is a budget device, you insensitive clod! In fact, it cost me about what Carmack wants a headset to cost, but it only has a 720p display and nowhere enough GPU to do the job. Even with Cardboard, the price is still too damn high unless you're willing to accept a very low-poly experience, which I don't think is realistic. Having to pay for a high-res display and a high-performance graphics system is still a lot to ask.

    • Wow, that reminded me that Google once used to do cool stuff. The collapse came very quickly.

  • Where's the killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @11:17AM (#62962913)
    Carmack knows this space better than I do, but I have trouble understanding his point about a low-end, light weight headset being the thing that'll put VR on the map. Every major piece of hardware launches with a killer app that gives people a new capability to drive an install base; game consoles, iPhones (except lately which is why their latest model sales are not as good; the reviews for the upcoming iPhone14 are basically saying it's not much different from the iPhone13).

    He even brings up the point in his own statement: their whole event was not much different than a video of him talking. So what's the killer app that requires VR and putting on a headset? I just don't see it. And no, I don't want people's speculation; what is the industry consolidating around as the key driver for VR adoption?

    • Re:Where's the killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday October 13, 2022 @11:27AM (#62962957) Homepage Journal

      I'm not convinced that his vision is correct for this time and level of technology, but he's absolutely right about a cheaper device being necessary to get the masses to care. If only early adopters can afford to be on your platform, then they aren't even going to want to be there, because there won't be enough of them. Their world is going to feel empty, because it will be empty.

      There is no reason for the masses to give a crap about Meta's Metaverse. If they can't afford to be there, why should they? But there is equally little point in making a bad device. If you can't make a profit selling a headset that gives a halfway decent experience for $250, then the fundamental conclusion is that you shouldn't be trying to sell it to the masses.

      Zuck and Carmack alike clearly thought that this would be a lot easier than it is. If it were easy, some organization with more chops than Facebook would have done it already. Carmack might be the right programmer, but this might just be the wrong time. And clearly Zuck adds nothing to the equation except funding, which arguably would better have come from somewhere else.

      • Here's the thing: if they could make an amazing headset for $50 and still make money, I still wouldn't buy it because they haven't yet once explained what VR can do for me. Why should anyone log on to VR? They're the champions for this, they want people to believe, but they aren't doing the legwork to explain why VR is necessary in any useful way.

        So I just don't agree with that assessment at all. It's not the price that's the problem; it's a fundamental question: Why should anyone care?

        • If you could sell them for $50 then gamers would buy them in droves. If you could make a really great headset and sell it for even $100 I think basically every gamer would buy one. Once they have it, and you're presumably forcing them to use your service to get updates etc., you can maybe convince them to use your metaverse-now-with-legs.

          We're a long way away from even an acceptable device costing that much, though...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Joviex ( 976416 )

        I'm not convinced that his vision is correct for this time and level of technology, but he's absolutely right about a cheaper device being necessary to get the masses to care.

        This is from your vast experience making, marketing and selling product, software and hardware, over 25+ years? Or just staying at a Holiday Inn?

        • Maybe it's more like $300, or with inflation, $400. It's definitely not $1,400. I say this as my experience as a person who has now and again had disposable income to blow on bullshit.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by K10W ( 1705114 )

        Maybe what he means is why target a VR product to the rich who can afford real experiences and not to the poor who can only afford virtual ones ? :)

        Oh there is definitely a niche for high end HMD's aimed at higher price brackets, but that isn't their audience since they serve entertainment focused niche aimed at consumers, most of whom want low cost. The likes of big business from high end car dealerships, interior design and architecture and other niche business use will go with the likes of Varjo XR-3. Especially since the latter have support built into the subscription package their HMD's require to work. They're outside of most consumers budget eve

      • This is my thread so I can't upvote you, but maybe you're right. Maybe he's going for the "Ready Player One" real world dystopian thing.

    • It seems like there's a built-in market as a drone accessory. I've seen some drone operators using headsets in the wild already, so they're used to it. The killer app is literally a killer app if you militarize it, and you can multiply the cost of the headset by 10 or even 100X to make up for the lower number of customers. For consumers though, recreational drones as an entree, then maybe side-load some games in there since you've already got the set. Pokemon Go virtual/augmented reality. Partner with

      • Quite honestly, that's the best idea for VR I've ever heard of. Too bad no one is making that.

      • Pokemon Go virtual/augmented reality.

        The closest we've gotten to that on an official product was Pokemon Legends Arceus and that was only due to a glitch that caused the first person perspective mode to not revert back to third person after the trigger was released. (Sadly, I thought it was a feature.) This is something that many have dreamed of since the days of Red and Blue, myself included, but that we never get. Nintendo certainly has the reach and brand recognition to make a VR killer app, but there's no point for them to do so if the ha

      • If you put a camera on this thing for the AR stuff and then tell people to wear it outside then you've made Google Glass, with all of the associated problems which killed that.

    • And why the Quest 2 has been wildly successful? If you compare it to an Index, the Index wins on most technical aspects. But $1000+ is a tough price point.

      VR is difficult to sell because it's difficult spending that sums without having tried the technology, there's a big barrier there. A "good enough" device at a quarter of that price can translate in causal sales of people that are interested in trying the tech but will hardly spend much money on something they do not know exactly how works.

      • I don't disagree with you, but that's an eminently solvable problem with a proper sales process. A 30 day money-back guarantee is a very common way of allowing people to try something effectively for free. Proper in-store demos are great to let people try it.

        If people don't understand how to use it, then that's either because the seller has a terrible sales process, or because the seller has no idea why a customer would use it. Either way, it's the fault of the seller.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zangief ( 461457 )

      I guess he wants to put the entry fee as low as possible

      but the problem I fear is that cheap headsets will produce undesirable side effects to the wearers which seems to me are a big reason VR hasn't taken off

      • I can go to an NFL game and the tickets are $100/pop.

        I can also go to a peewee football game for free.

        Both are football; but they're entirely different experiences, and people are willing to pay for the more expensive one than the cheaper one. So I'm not at all convinced the cost of the headset as a gateway cost is the limiting factor here, rather it's a lack of imagination on the part of anyone at Meta to come up with an application that justifies the entry price.

    • Where's the killer app?

      Porn. The first "killer app" for all new technologies is porn. Then groups come in and mainstream it for other uses.

      Although with free porn already on the internet, a pixelated, jerky, 3Hz video will NOT quite cut it. Maybe something that caused the death in Brainstorm [imdb.com] would work.

  • VR is cool in small doses but it also kind of sucks. It hasn't exactly set the gaming world alight despite multiple attempts and I don't see why meta thinks people are going to walk around some bland virtual world filled when there isn't even a good reason to do it.

  • VR continues to be niche (Score:4, Informative)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @11:44AM (#62963075)

    Carmack is absolutely correct about consumers wanting a cheap device.

    Consumers will pay $1K for a phone but not north of $1K for VR because the phone is WAY more useful.

    Meta trying to sell a "premium" VR kit is rather short-sighted given how fast VR headsets become obsolete.

    • They should learn from Gillette. Make the units insanely cheap, and make it up on the software. They're just pissing money away anyway, might as well get products into consumers hands.

      Also, why do these things have processors in them? Shouldn't it be running off my PC, like Occulus used to? I get that Quest was supposed to be mobile, but this thing costs three times as much. I don't want to use a Snapdragon processor while I've got an nVidia sitting not ten feet away. VR is a pass for me (at the mo

      • You can still use your nVidia, it’ll just stream to your headset both the headset and your nVidia should have fairly low latency hardware video encoders/decoders so it’s not as awful as you might think but I’m sure someone will disagree that the latency and artifacting is absolutely unbearable.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        Carmack specifically addressed this in his talk, though he was talking about the decision to bump the price on Quest 2 from $300 to $400.

        He presented it as a tradeoff. Either they price the hardware so that they can make a profit on it and are happy to let you do whatever you want with it, such as allowing free software in their store and sideloading and third-party PC VR and jailbreaking and all sorts of stuff, or they price the hardware at a loss and lock it all down so that they have an incentive to only

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        Should have put this in my other comment, but on your point about being mobile, the Quest 2 launched at $300 (since increase to $400) and is also fully standalone, and was cheaper (at launch) than their PC-based headset was. I don't want to be tethered to a computer with a wire, dragging the thing and tripping over it. I want what they're doing, a fully standalone mobile headset that can wirelessly connect to a PC to leverage that nVidia GPU if required.

        There's an argument to be made that the image quality

        • Wifi 6 can conceivably offer barely-acceptable 10ms latency, but you really want all of the rendering to happen on your person because there is already other latency, and the less the better. If processing has to be remote from the headset to keep from weighing down my neck, it can go on my belt... for now.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Guspaz ( 556486 )

            You can work around it. They've been working on doing more and more reprojection on the headset to compensate for wireless latency. Perhaps a future headset could include support for raw displayport input via the USB-C port to allow it to be used as a native PC headset. But I don't personally have much interest in tethering myself in VR. It's dangerous and ruins the immersion.

    • The phone is pretty much a need these days (since this is slashdot I know one of you is using a feature phone no need to tell us) a VR headset is still very much something people might not even be sure they want. Cheap is vital.

      But I’ll never buy another meta product ever so it doesn’t matter if they cram a VR headset into a set of $150 mirror shades. But if they do I’m sure other people will buy it unfortunately.

      Such a fucking waste to have Carmack working for that weasel-lizard hybrid.

      • Oculus / Meta dropping macOS and Linux support is what killed it for me, in addition to Facebook profiting off of other people's data.

  • That and a shitty VR world and motion sickness makes the rest of us grumpy !
  • VR is here to stay. The Quest 2 has sold about 14 million units in two years. The Quest 3 will most likely come closer to Carmack's ideals better than any other headset (although due to inflation he may be a bit off on pricing).

    Regardless, it's still cheaper & more portable than any other major gaming console - many of which only have one user anyway - and will increasingly be looked at as a 'primary gaming machine' by anyone on a budget with stereoscopic vision. Once you've experienced full immer

    • More portable than a Switch?

      • I wasn't considering the Switch for the same reason I wasn't considering other mobile gaming, it's a different category which cannot compete immersion-wise. When it's plugged into a large screen with surround sound, it gets closer to competing, but that setup is really not portable.

        --
        We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we can post & comment on stats about them.

  • The real problem is this... (Score:3)

    by hierofalcon ( 1233282 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @12:11PM (#62963215)

    Carmack said by way of introduction. "This here, this isn't really what I meant. Me being an avatar on-screen on a video for you is basically the same thing as [just] being on a video."

    His introduction gives the current primary problem with VR. It doesn't give the average user anything more than what they can get without VR. If you have the bucks, VR is great for flight and combat simulation - or at least will be - next month or maybe the month thereafter. But for most things right now and without huge military sized bucks behind the "world", we'd just as soon listen to a video as watch some stupid avatar saying the same thing in some 3d arena. We'd rather shop in a real store or online than have to navigate around a digital 3d world. What's the point.

    If the costs dramatically drop - even below the numbers he's quoting - and storefronts prove to have something more useful than current websites - or if games get really, really good and realistic in 3d, then maybe they'll take off. I can't imagine any thrill in wandering around a virtual store looking for the hardware section when I can just type in hammers in a searchbox, but to each their own. Really good 3d sport, racing, or shooter games would be great though. For now - 3d - meh.

    • His introduction gives the current primary problem with VR. It doesn't give the average user anything more than what they can get without VR.

      That's not really true. Echo Arena is a pretty amazing example, it's like the battles in Ender's game. Even Tetris is better in VR.

      It's important to distinguish between "Facebook's Metaverse" (which you are accurately criticizing) and VR in general. VR is here and can be great.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I'd have thought VR would suck for flight simulation.

      First you have the problem of needing complex controls but being unable to see them. If they put the controls in VR there is no haptic feedback when you touch them with most systems.

      Then you have the problem of your eyes perceiving motion and rotation of your body, but your inner ear not sensing it, which usually results in nausea.

      • The serious people doing flight and combat simulation are actual pilot trainees who have mocked up 100% accurate cockpits at their disposal and go on to fly in the real thing. Most setups have had physical feedback of some sort for decades. VR mocks up what they would see out their windows and maps in potential ground targets or other aircraft keeping everything up to date with what other trainees are doing. It isn't the VR you think of, perhaps, but it is virtual reality and it's a big step up from what th

      • VR is ideal for arcade-ish flight simulation, where you never have to take your hands off the HOTAS. Even a cheap set of controls has enough buttons, switches, and bullshit that you can control every function in all but the most realistic simulators through it, especially if you are willing to use a mode switch.

        The nausea problem exists even without VR goggles. Some people already can't stand to play flightsims, especially the kind where you're flying aerobatically. And the bigger the monitor, the bigger th

  • ... stupid in old age. The fact he went with zuckerberg tells me he's lost his ability to reason outside of coding.

    • You can't answer that question properly without knowing how much he got paid.

      • Sure he got paid lots, but now he gets to be powerless. Everything he says is now tainted, as you know he went for the money rather than his vision. And don't tell me "A chief position in Oculus would enable him blah blah", I don't believe he was *that* stupid to assume he'd get any real power to do things. Blow all your higher ups now John, congrats.

        • To that point, if he is in charge of the metaverse, his skills have gone way downhill.

        • Everything he says is now tainted

          This is literally a story about him complaining about how he can't do what he wants to do in his position. Tell us how that's tainted by his position.

          I don't believe he was *that* stupid to assume he'd get any real power to do things.

          He's used to being taken seriously.

          • He's smart enough to know the moment he signs a deal with the devil, he can only moan and suggest, not make the actual decisions for things outside his domain. He's the go-to person for hardware/software topics, not marketing, production, etc. Also, since he works with Facebook, he's tainted, period. If you don't understand that, fine, go and make money whatever the means and repercussions and ignore my rambling.
  • Why do people assume a damn avatar on stage, talking, is interesting?

  • Everything about VR is stupid today. Something like Unreal 5 can actually do the realtime depth of field rendering that a simulation needs but you need great eye tracking and two top-tier GPU's worth of performance to just walk in the door today.

    VR will happen on a mass scale at some point but not before the "seasickness" problems are eliminated. Guys at SIGGRAPH in the 90's were saying the same thing.

    Check back in 2029 if the politicians don't blow us up first.

    Both Carmack and I seem to want usable VR.

  • You've got a low-level, down in the weeds coder who managed to pull off some bleeding edge stuff on PC hardware - a guy who wasn't afraid to throw out a lot of good code and start from scratch because he wanted faster and faster rendering - who is now mired down in project management, corporate politics, hardware design, social media innovation, and all that mess. I'm sure there are many days he wishes he was back in front of a 386 with a CRT monitor sitting on top actually in control of something.

    • >I'm sure there are many days he wishes he was back in front of a 386 with a CRT monitor sitting on top actually in control of something.

      This gave me feels because it is so true.

      Perhaps I'm a sucker for nostalgia, but personally, sitting here working as 1 developer out of 300 making tax software makes one prone to think of "better days"

  • There are cheaper ways to make yourself puke (Score:3)

    by Nocturrne ( 912399 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:55PM (#62964029)

    VR is just as dead as it was the last 5 times a big company tried to made a big heavy and expensive thing to put on your face.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      VR is just as dead as it was the last 5 times a big company tried to made a big heavy and expensive thing to put on your face.

      This, ultimately it's the big and heavy that kills it because your neck and back have to support it.

      The impossibility of a "one size fits all" headset is another major issue. I tried VR at a pub in London a few weeks back, the headset didn't fit me so the headphones were too low and I didn't hear anything. The more sliders and moving parts for size adjustment you need to have, the more weight you're adding.

      You also get pretty sick of wearing it after about 15 mins.

  • It's eternally "just beyond the horizon".

  • $1,499? I thought it was $1,4999.

  • Like many, I am baffled at the fascination with VR. I guess some people are obsessed with the ideas in sci-fi novels, but how did they not notice that all of them are profoundly dystopian? That a world in which people consistently seek connection outside the real world is a world that is profoundly broken?

    We evolved to pick up on the finest details of the world. We are astoundingly good at knowing if somebody is looking at us, at using very small eye and head movements to detect depth and motion.

    We don't ne

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Close