Why VR headsets have never been the success they were intended to be?
category: offtopic [glöplog]
VR is a good product, but it might be as well not for everyone.
It seems to me a logically fallacy to think that there exists a universal law that applies to every product out there. For example, the fact that a phone was used first by a minority (geeks) and then took off as successful mainstream product doesn't mean that VR will follow the same pattern. I bet there are many products that will always be a niché products.
For example, not everyone has a big telescope on his terrace/balcony even if it's super-duper toy to have. And it's actually cheaper than some VR headsets. But I don't hear anyone saying: there should be big telescope in every household. And I suspect Meta was thinking there should be "VR headset in every household" or even "on everyone's nose every day".
This seems to follow blindly cliché business spells, like "PC on every desk", "smart watch on every wrist", "3d printer on every desk", "flying car in every future garage", "AR glasses on everyone's nose", "3d TV in every living room", "Linux in every PC", "256b intros on everyone's watchlist" etc... some of those things are (or will be) mainstream, some don't.
It seems to me a logically fallacy to think that there exists a universal law that applies to every product out there. For example, the fact that a phone was used first by a minority (geeks) and then took off as successful mainstream product doesn't mean that VR will follow the same pattern. I bet there are many products that will always be a niché products.
For example, not everyone has a big telescope on his terrace/balcony even if it's super-duper toy to have. And it's actually cheaper than some VR headsets. But I don't hear anyone saying: there should be big telescope in every household. And I suspect Meta was thinking there should be "VR headset in every household" or even "on everyone's nose every day".
This seems to follow blindly cliché business spells, like "PC on every desk", "smart watch on every wrist", "3d printer on every desk", "flying car in every future garage", "AR glasses on everyone's nose", "3d TV in every living room", "Linux in every PC", "256b intros on everyone's watchlist" etc... some of those things are (or will be) mainstream, some don't.
yes but Apple doesn't waste their time making niche products
FWIW Garj had it right.
My opinion is that:
1) There needs to be more killer apps for the things. There just aren't enough convincing top tiers applications. These don't have to be games, they could be productivity software, but the platform needs a reason for people to use it besides the novelty factor.
Like, if you could make an argument that doing art or music, or office stuff in the headset is more productive, that would help bridge the gap and give people reasons beyond games to develop the platform.
2) They need to increase comfort while using the sets somehow. The sets need to weigh less and have higher refresh rates. There needs to be coding standards so the applications are universally less nauseating. Some of that can't be helped, but I think a lot of it stems from unstable framerates / nausea inducing camera work.
3) The sets should all have some passthrough / AR ability so you can seamlessly "turn off" the VR and see through the set to re-orient yourself. Some of the sets do this ok, others I think it's more awkward.
Those are just my thoughts.
My opinion is that:
1) There needs to be more killer apps for the things. There just aren't enough convincing top tiers applications. These don't have to be games, they could be productivity software, but the platform needs a reason for people to use it besides the novelty factor.
Like, if you could make an argument that doing art or music, or office stuff in the headset is more productive, that would help bridge the gap and give people reasons beyond games to develop the platform.
2) They need to increase comfort while using the sets somehow. The sets need to weigh less and have higher refresh rates. There needs to be coding standards so the applications are universally less nauseating. Some of that can't be helped, but I think a lot of it stems from unstable framerates / nausea inducing camera work.
3) The sets should all have some passthrough / AR ability so you can seamlessly "turn off" the VR and see through the set to re-orient yourself. Some of the sets do this ok, others I think it's more awkward.
Those are just my thoughts.
There are also alternatives that doesn't cause any discomfort = volumetric displays.
Here is an interesting attempt: https://voxon.co/ (not an ad)
I would love to see the tech going in this direction. It's difficult though. It's a far cry so far from what we were "promised" in sci-fi's. If only physics would be more hackable ;) It would be great to have room-scale volumetric display instead of AR.
Here is an interesting attempt: https://voxon.co/ (not an ad)
I would love to see the tech going in this direction. It's difficult though. It's a far cry so far from what we were "promised" in sci-fi's. If only physics would be more hackable ;) It would be great to have room-scale volumetric display instead of AR.
Discomfort is part of the experience. My gf (at the time or writing, who knows how long this things last nowadays) spends hours using my Pico 4 without any issue, and she never played anything before, never complained about feeling this or that.
Volumetric displays are cool, but they're not the same.
Volumetric displays are cool, but they're not the same.
I thought you said discomfort was part of the experience?
