Virtual reality flopped in the 1990s – This time it’s different, apparently

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21662481-virtual-reality-flopped-1990s-time-its-differentapparently-grand

by phodo • 11 years ago

24 49 11 years ago

economist.com

zamalek3• 11 years ago

A counterargument: http://blog.codinghorror.com/i-tried-vr-and-it-was-just-ok/

TDLR; it seems as though people are excited about VR being exciting, instead of being excited about VR itself.

nakedrobot22• 11 years ago

In actual real-world user tests, I've found that 95-95% of people say "Holy OMFG this is one of the coolest things I have EVER SEEN!!!1"

There are "always a few" who shrug their shoulders and say "so what is the use-case for this anyway?"

christoph2• 11 years ago

We developed a piece of software for use at a pharmaceutical trade show and had nearly 1000 people use it over three days.

This was exactly our experience. There was certainly a 10% who were absolutely blown away and we almost had to rip the headset off them after 20 minutes. Around 80% who were quite amazed and engrossed in the whole thing and certainly a 5 to 10% who were just meh, or felt a bit queasy very early on.

We deliberately programmed in an early section that would separate out people likely to feel sick early on. Our thought here was to get them out early on, rather than let sickness creep up on them.

I think the 5 to 10% will shrink quite quickly with new hardware. We couldn't calibrate IPD for everyone - new headsets make this much quicker and easier to do. Reduced latency, etc. is all going to help here as well.

zamalek3• 11 years ago

There are "always a few" who shrug their shoulders and say "so what is the use-case for this anyway?"

Interesting point. I personally have no opinion as I haven't yet used one of the devices; which will stay that way until we see a decrease in cost. As it stands, evaluating the devices in any regard is unfair as both the technology itself and the games that support it are still working out many kinks.

Just thought Jeff's post was an interesting counterbalance to the VR hype sphere - although it may be somewhat unwarranted due to the aforementioned immaturity of the technology.

gambiting2• 11 years ago

I have a friend who is writing VR software for a major fast food restaurant chain, so they can arrange everything they want in VR and walk around the restaurant before it's even built. Huge contract I've heard.

minthd• 11 years ago

Maybe a different question need to be asked - people who bought VR headset - how do they feel after months of ownership ?

interpol_p• 11 years ago

I am a VR user who finds the experience magical and incredible.

But I can't see it becoming a mainstream interaction device. It may be an amazing experience, but as long as it involves strapping something to your face it is immediately too much work to use.

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

That's the case with a LOT of things. Time will tell if that 90-95% will plunk down the cash to actually OWN a device.

There's a difference between thinking something is cool and thinking something is cool enough to own.

rayalez2• 11 years ago

To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.

You could criticize computers in the 90's the same way. Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing.

In my opinion it is an opportunity comparable to the beginning of internet. You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties that will obviously be fixed in the next 2-5 years, and ignore the magnitude of what VR has to offer.

zamalek3• 11 years ago

To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.

All I am doing is providing an opposing thoughts about VR, because much of the media about VR is overly hyped. Jeff's outlook on the technology is 100% true for him and people who agree with him.

Much of the hype around VR is overly positive and unrealistic.

Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's immune to ending in a complete flop. See: "hype."

You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties

If nobody criticizes the shortcomings of the technology then those shortcomings suffer from lower prioritization. Positive perspectives on technology (fandom, hype) are nearly worthless and merely drive the hype machine. Negative perspectives drive the technology to a more viable place.

Jeff's musings are important milestones that virtually everyone would agree with as critical goals (that currently limit the viability of the technology), if only many weren't completely blinded by hype and zealous fandom.

Information such as Jeff's is important for people who want to make informed decisions about forking out $400 for the tech right now.

That is why I specifically said:

Counterargument

mozumder• 11 years ago

No, it's still going to flop. The kind of people that think VR is a good idea also thought Ouya is a good idea, so yah, it's doomed.

Didn't personal injury lawsuit concerns kill VR back in the 90's?

And then there's the limited field-of-view..

EngineerBetter• 11 years ago

A handful of games developers I know that have used Oculus Rift complained of sickness after 20 minutes or so. Apparently it's better with recent revisions of the hardware, but to put it in perspective the prior revision had one chap needing to lie down in a dark room he felt so awful!

vanderZwan• 11 years ago

Many shortcuts that we normally get away with when looking at 3D on a screen become really jarring in VR. The following article lists a few interesting ones that are often forgotten, such as shading:

http://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be-sexis...

Ignore the clickbaity title, the article has good info.

hrnnnnnn3• 11 years ago

I played Valkyrie on the DK1, it was awful, I felt sick for about two hours afterwards.

I played it on the DK2 about a year later. I felt a slight twinge, especially when the head-tracking hitched, but afterwards I felt fine.

Also played a racing game on the DK2 around the same time with no ill effect. I think the head-tracking really helps here.

Rapzid• 11 years ago

When my mate finally got in DK1(and we finally got HL2 working with it) I found the load a terrible user experience. Going from head tracking and immersion to a sudden frozen image that is fixed in your view while your head moves.. Crazy vertigo. I didn't really get sick from it, but it definitely was not the most fun I have had playing a game.

These things will get sorted out relatively quickly though I imagine.

SideburnsOfDoom• 11 years ago

I had that a few years ago with an earlier red-blue 3d system, and it was terrible for 20-30 minutes. I had to lie down.

It's also known as "Doom-Induced Motion Sickness" or DIMS. (1)

Motion sickness in a car or boat is caused by a conflict - the inner ear says "you're moving" and the eyes say "you're at rest".

With a game, this is reversed - the eyes say "you're moving" and the inner ear says "nope!". This was worse, or at least unfamiliar in a bad way.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/19/video-ga...

http://kotaku.com/5869607/how-motion-sickness-can-ruin-games...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.254333-Doom-ma...

jeffwass• 11 years ago

This effect goes back way before FPS video games.

Eg, I got this badly as a kid in the early 80's at Disney World, in the O Canada! Circle-Vision 360° theatre. Within seconds of starting the movie, I felt the whole room moving around and I nearly hurled. Luckily since the room is stationary I just sat down with my eyes closed for the rest of the film and recovered pretty quickly afterwards.

Kiro• 11 years ago

one chap needing to lie down in a dark room

Sounds like the standard reaction. The real horror stories are about people who are wasted for days after trying Oculus Rift.

madaxe_again• 11 years ago

It may flop in the mass market, but as one who has had 18 hour goggle sessions in elite, there is a market, it may just be more niche for the time being than vr firms are betting on.

So - I don't think it will ultimately flop, but it may be a slower start than the hype hopes for.

nakedrobot22• 11 years ago

Nothing about VR Cinema?

Shameless self promotion: http://www.Sphericam.com is the ONLY spherical camera with 4K resolution and 60FPS, providing the nateve resolution needed for VR cinema in today's and next year's VR headsets. We are now taking preorders after raising nearly half a million dollars on Kickstarter in july.

azernik2• 11 years ago

RTFA

"That the new generation of VR’s first software products will mostly be games, then, seems in little doubt. But the industry’s boosters point out that it could have plenty of other uses as well. One is film. All of the proposed headsets will come with cinema apps that put the user inside a virtual picture palace with an ordinary flat screen. But immersive films that place the viewer at the centre of the action, and which are made with special panoramic cameras, are possible too. One, called “Clouds over Sidra”, which chronicles life inside a refugee camp in Jordan, has already proved a hit online."

hacker_93• 11 years ago

It's a step in the right direction, but I personally don't think the tech is there yet - just look at the millions that go into creating 3d games for a 2d surface, how does that scale to 360deg of motion?

Additionally, you have M$ marketing campaign which does videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA (even though it's AR, the point still stands that VR/AR are being marketed as more than they actually are).

hrnnnnnn3• 11 years ago

I don't understand the question. You've already got a 3D environment, all you have to do is implement camera control for the headset. For simulation games where the user is stationary (planes, cars) you can pretty much stop there.

Other games will need to be designed with VR in mind, but it's not going to balloon art budgets or anything. On the contrary, what a lot of developers find is that they can get away with less sophisticated graphics while maintaining a sense of presence. See Superhot for a good example.

https://superhotgame.com/

hacker_93• 11 years ago

Yes you have a 3d world, but now everything in it needs to be interact able. Knock your fist against a wall for example, it makes subtlety different noises everytime - how do you program for that? Everything in the environment should have physics too. In a survival game if I pick up cello-tape and a gun and flashlight I'd expect to be able to attach it all together myself with my hands.

All this stuff you can hide behind a button press on a gamepad+tv, but in VR it's so much more jarring when the world you are walking around can only be somewhat interacted with - the techniques we use to fake stuff today just don't stand up when you can look at them from a mm away. The idea of VR+gamepad just doesn't make sense to me - If I can't see/control my hands/feet as I'd expect then all these reports of VR induced sickness come as no surprise.

hosh2• 11 years ago

I disagree.

(1) The millions that go into creating 3d games for 2d surfaces are often going for things that may not matter for VR. Much of the push in AAA titles have been towards photorealism. Photorealism is not necessary to induce presence.

(2) With presence, VR content will not necessarily be about games, it will be about experiences, of which games are a small subset. It's a different medium.

(3) The current trend towards violent games won't work. With a sufficient level of presence, the current edge of VR technology will induce an existential crises. It doesn't work for everyone (yet), but we've never had something that closed enough of the uncanny valley gap until this generation. When I heard that it induces an existential crises, I knew this is the real deal.

hacker_93• 11 years ago

Graphics in modern 3d games are completely faked, and it works because they can control the view medium (the tv - a 2d window). When you can walk around the world though in VR would you not expect to be able to kick objects around, move lights, lock doors, break tables to use the pieces as weapons? Instead you still have the same game as on the tv where all that stuff is off limits, resulting in this weird in-between-fake-and-real-world-simulation which is jarring to play.

hayksaakian• 11 years ago

personal anecdote:

- the resolution on the Oculus DK2 is painfully low -- it's like sticking your face 1 inch from a 640x400 CRT monitor. This made me car-sick after a few minutes.

- the sense of "presence" and natural neck movement is very good and it feels natural.

- the notion of a headset is a bit clunky but i don't know of a better solution.

chjohasbrouck• 11 years ago

I just don't think putting screens in front of a person's eyes is going to be the solution for VR.

The technology needs more direct access to our biology to truly deliver on the expectations it creates.

jimhefferon• 11 years ago

Can a patch on the skin induce currents in the nerves below the skin?

geon• 11 years ago

Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPNXUfOkt2A

You would probably want more fidelity, though.

kristopolous2• 11 years ago

can't wait for VRML to come back. It was included in browsers back then.

It's always great to remember that we had realtime chat and 3d worlds running in the browser in 1997, http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/fullbook/chch/ch1f.... ... on systems with 0.1% the ram, 0.05% the disk space on 0.2% the bandwidth of our modern systems.

fulafel• 11 years ago

Which browser included VRML support? I just remember the plugins.

Edit: It was Netscape - http://docs.tpu.ru/docs/html/html32/ch28.htm#NetscapesLive3D

kristopolous2• 11 years ago

netscape struck a deal with SGI in the day. Here's the press release of the shipment: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cosmo-player-ships-a...

And here's the press release of the deal: https://books.google.com/books?id=aToEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA...

for IE: "Microsoft integrated the Intervista VRML 2.0 viewer in Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer 4.0." http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/microsoft-releases-v...

edit: I can't find an actual build with it. I did find a version bundled with AIM, WinAmp, RealPlayer G2, and PalmPilot utilities though. Here's the glory screen shot, in an appropriately old window manager http://i.imgur.com/nacQMCX.png

Theodores• 11 years ago

The problem last time around is always put down to bandwidth and the need to download plugins. But actually I thought content was the larger problem. I actually bought and paid for CosmoWorlds and I still rate it up there as 'best software ever'. The problem with it was that nobody was using it, the learning curve wasn't being taken by that many people. I found myself 'the only one' using VRML properly, as in proper lighting, an environment that you could explore rather than 'an odd shape you could inspect'.

I expect that games will be important to 3D #2, but still, it will be the 'unwillingness of people to learn the new tools' and imagination that will dampen whatever we do with it.

aaron695• 11 years ago

Biggest issue - It takes work to use. People are lazy, standing and moving is not fun.

One of the reasons the minority report interface sucks. It's way to much effort to use compared to a mouse.

But it'll take off thanks to the internet, it allows a lot of old tech to start working, just it'll be narrower than people think.

rayalez2• 11 years ago

Technically you can just swivel chair and a gamepad. That could be enough for like 80% of use cases.

You can watch tv in a virtual theater from a couch, you can observe 360 videos/panoramas and play most of the games from swivel chair.

KuhlMensch• 11 years ago

I played with the Oculus for about 1.25 hours while drunk, and felt sick for about 20 minutes afterwards.

My guess:

When good headsets hit with 4k and ~20ms latency (2017?), with great cross platform support (2018?), at a reasonable pricepoint, comfort level and UX (2019)? we will all be using them to code.

In a few years when you are pair programming with someone remotely, I'd be surprised if you didn't point to line 12 with your hand.

virmundi• 11 years ago

But how good is it for people with glasses? I wear headphones (around the ear) because it seems to help me focus. It DOES cause pain no matter which pair of glasses I wear. So every hour I have to remove the headphones. All the while I'm fiddling with my headphones. Even now I'm keenly aware of the developing pain.

I can't see myself have a similar issue with my vision.

unfamiliar• 11 years ago

This vision doesn't seem to hold any improvements for me over a VNC session and a webcam.

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

Kind of like here in the Post PC world where we are all coding on tablets while sitting on the beach.

Sorry, but no. I just don't see this happening. People don't want things on their face for that long. Even eyeglasses bug me and I've been wearing them most my life.

Virtual reality flopped in the 1990s – This time it’s different, apparently

Related Stories