Virtual Reality is going to change the world

http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the-world/

by bpierre • 12 years ago

597 210 12 years ago

Jemaclus• 12 years ago

Well, that was quick and well stated. I agree with notch, here. I trust Carmack and I'm sure he can pull off something great, but I personally have regretted every tech interaction with FB that I've ever had to build. I'm not sure I would want to work with Facebook either.

And that's a shame.

xpose2000• 12 years ago

I can see the avalanche of negativity coming, and I understand why. However, I don't think we should automatically assume it's a negative thing like Notch did.

Facebook can try to ensure that the games are geared towards social interactivity that benefits their platform, but in the end, the developers truly pick the direction. Anyone can buy a dev kit and see what they can build with it.

Maybe Facebook wants Oculus Rift to operate as a completely separate entity outside their core business. Maybe it's something they believe in and want to expand into a new genre. Mark has some interesting insights on where to take it: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397.

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.

baby• 12 years ago

Exactly, everybody is trashing the acquisition for no reasons. I feel like I'm the only one actually happy for Oculus that facebook bought them. Now people around me are gonna hear about Oculus, VR was going to be something big, but with facebook to back them? It's going to be the next big thing.

jeffool• 12 years ago

I think people have reasons. I think their hesitance in relation to Facebook is not completely unwarranted. Mostly people are exaggerating anything I'm worried about, but, hardware owned by non-hardware companies is often tied into software platforms in really damn annoying ways.

To me that would be a legitimate concern with any non-hardware company purchase of a hardware company.

TrainedMonkey2• 12 years ago

"Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't."

All of Halo series would be on PC.

jiggy20112• 12 years ago

It was originally a Mac title!

varkson2• 12 years ago

It'd probably still be an RTS and likely never become popular. There might never have been a second Halo.

jfb• 12 years ago

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.

We might have gotten a non-crappy Myth III.

Mikeb85• 12 years ago

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.

Maybe Sega would have released the Dreamcast 2...

balls187• 12 years ago

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't

Call of Duty and the FPS genre would not have been ruined.

SolarUpNote• 12 years ago

I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook. Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven’t historically been a stable platform. There’s nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me.

Interesting how it all boils down to trust. You could think of all kinds of amazing possibilities, but if you don't trust them, it's 100% off.

hrktb• 12 years ago

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.

Kinect would have been developed independently and be sold the same way the leap motion controller is sold today, and console and game makers would have licensed it instead. Not so bad I think.

skore2• 12 years ago

For a guy who is otherwise rather easy going, Notch can be incredibly pragmatic and strident. Here, he has cut to heart of the issue.

And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social.

He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.

This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.

bduerst• 12 years ago

My guess is that when Oculus Rift found out about Sony coming to market, they knew they needed someone with deep pockets to speed up their implementation.

They were probably in talks with a number of other companies, but Facebook jumped the gun and made an offer they couldn't refuse, in order to prevent their "competitor" from getting it.

</speculation>

I wonder if FB is going to use OR to rebirth Facebook games, or maybe make their own foray into the gaming industry.

kamkazemoose• 12 years ago

I'd be surprised if the Sony news had anything to do with this. These sorts of acquisitions don't happen overnight, they've likely been talking for months, doing due diligence and other research into the deal.

smacktoward5• 12 years ago

And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition

He really puts his finger on one of the reasons why this deal feels so weird here, I think. Nobody who contributed to the Oculus Kickstarter did so because they were hoping Oculus would get flipped to a mega-corp. They didn't do so because they wanted the Oculus team to have a big, splashy VC-style exit. They did so because they wanted the Oculus product. And the history of products that have been swallowed by mega-corps, after the swallowing, is not encouraging.

It's an outcome that strikes directly at the heart of the Kickstarter ethos. Everybody wins in this deal -- except the people who donated to the Kickstarter. Those folks... well, they kind of end up looking like suckers.

arasmussen• 12 years ago

Who ever said those people aren't going to get the product? Why do you think the product will get swallowed up?

"Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook" --Mark Zuckerberg

skore2• 12 years ago

They did so because they wanted the Oculus product.

Let's not forget that a huge part of the pitch was to be part of a developer community that sets out into an as of yet unknown realm.

I don't think people are worried about what Facebook might do to Oculus, the product. They have a hard time seeing Facebook the social engine and Oculus, the developer community coexisting peacefully. In a way, they're already making a rather concrete case against it.

paulhauggis• 12 years ago

Is this the equivalent of a fan hating an indy band for "selling out"?

mcphage3• 12 years ago

Everybody wins in this deal -- except the people who donated to the Kickstarter. Those folks... well, they kind of end up looking like suckers.

It's kinda a twist to the normal Kickstarter warnings—if you back a product, it might not ever succeed, jut disappear. This was a product that people backed, that was too successful, and looks like it's about to disappear.

samstave2• 12 years ago

Personally, I think this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd-funding works.

10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor.

There should be a chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the OP to provide some % equity into the project.

calbear81• 12 years ago

How is pre-ordering not just a form of fundraising on Kickstarter that skirts the laws around crowsourced investing? Couldn't a startup just go on Kickstarter, promise some type of product to be delivered x months in the future, raise their seed and focus on getting bought w/o ever having to give up any equity?

yaeger3• 12 years ago

No he doesn't. He oversimplifies things.

You know what the money during the kickstarter campaign was for? The first DevKit! They raised money for the dev kit and guess what? The people you chipped in got their dev kits.

As far as I can see, people got exactly out of the kickstarter campaign what they wanted. They helped to start the business of Oculus and in return even got the DevKit to experience the first results on the road to VR.

I hardly think just cause you started your business with a kickstarter campaign and gave the backers what you set out to give them should exempt you from ever getting acquired by another company somewhere down the road. If that were true, why go on kickstarter at all? That would basically mean you will always stay a small time player. If you can survive at all because you will have to do it all by yourself. Next thing you know, kickstarter backers demand that you also don't accept other investors money because then, these investors would also have a say how to do things.

Nursie2• 12 years ago

Yet another reason that kickstarter should be equity based. At the moment it's basically a charitable donation to someone else's success.

madeofpalk• 12 years ago

How would you feel if Valve bought Oculus?

Do you think the internet's reaction would be different?

GBond• 12 years ago

And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.

The Kickstarter angle is interesting.

I'd be peeved as well if I was a supporter and this happened. Aren't KS Projects by implication a "Project for the People" first and foremost? Should KS Backers at least get a small return for making a $2 Billion exit possible?

batoure• 12 years ago

I feel like 2014 will be the year of the big Kick Starter lawsuits where funders who feel betrayed by the projects they kicked in on turn angry. There have been number of movies funded that promised "downloadable versions" only to put those behind really awful drm websites on requirement of deals made with big companies to get the movies into theaters.

ekianjo10• 12 years ago

Should KS Backers at least get a small return for making a $2 Billion exit possible?

No. You know exactly what you buy (or try to buy) when you support a Kickstarter project. There's no equity in the companies you support. Not at all.

sfaruque• 12 years ago

New word learned -

Strident stri·dent strīdnt/Submit adjective 1. loud and harsh; grating. "his voice had become increasingly sharp, almost strident"

synonyms: harsh, raucous, rough, grating, rasping, jarring, loud, shrill, screeching, piercing, ear-piercing

RandallBrown• 12 years ago

Is he pragmatic enough that he'll eat his words and release Minecraft on the Oculus Rift if it gets popular and Facebook doesn't actually ruin it?

ekianjo10• 12 years ago

He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.

It's not just that. VR is not going to be a product that appeals to masses. I don't think it will change the world. It could impact the world of gaming, potentially, and only CERTAIN areas of gaming only.

There are several reasons for that. First, it's a peripheral. You'll need to convince people to buy another 300-400 USD of gear on top of a powerful computer OR a PS4. The PS4 may be winning on the market, but peripherals have a bad History of not selling very well on consoles. Even the Kinect, which sold relatively quite a lot on Xbox360, failed to deliver anything really revolutionary.

For PC gamers, you'll probably need a very powerful graphics card to make full use of it, and we already know that this kind of market is already a small minority in terms of PC users.

There are several issues with VR as well: it's not something you can use to replace the screen completely. You'll probably feel dizzy, nauseous, tired after some time with it. Your eyes will end up hurting. It will work well with cockpit-like simulators (and there aren't many of them left anymore...) but not so well with FPS where camera movements have to be extremely fast. There are other games (3rd person view ones, top view games) where using an Occulus won't really make sense anyway.

As for social applications, I don't know. It's already possible to do videoconference in pretty good quality but few companies actually use it, and still fly people all over the world because they find it works better to have face to face contact to solve issues and discuss projects. I'm not too sure the benefits of VR will outweigh its disadvantages in the everyday world.

And this is coming from someone who badly wants a consumer Rift for gaming.

qq66• 12 years ago

Your characterization of VR applications seems limited to near-term applications of current or immediate-term technologies.

What about when the device is $20 instead of $400? When it doesn't make you nauseous? When it's so close to face-to-face contact that you can replace 10 or 20 percent of your business travel?

samstave2• 12 years ago

I don't think it will change the world

When you have a clear visor that you're looking through that will seamlessly super-impose exactly matched visuals to reality with enriched data... yes it wil change the world.

Follow the calendar of the Mayans; everthing in cycles. Observe these cycles for great benefit!

In this case, industry cycles around new tech will revolve. Certain circles will reach maturity, age and collapse. All circles will repeat an evolving pattern, spiraling out...

This is how technology evolves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMY_JlBfClI

AND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie-6tcX5jKg#t=15

Think of each end-point of an arm of the spiral as a market leader in that category.

They will evolve, separate, matasticize and cannabalize the other objects in their tech-arm-thread.

We need another visualization of colliding spirals to illustrate this -- but they all start to grow from similar seeds....

weixiyen2• 12 years ago

You're going to read this in 10 years and look like the guy who predicted the iPhone to be a flop. Usable VR is absolutely world-changing.

anigbrowl3• 12 years ago

Headphones were a niche product for a certain sort of music lover until the invention of the Walkman, now everyone has a pair. Obviously VR goggles are a bit different since you can't (safely) walk around wearing a pair, but imagine them in a Google Glass like package or with optical nerve transducers. Today's hardcore gamer is tomorrow's prosumer, is the day after's average consumer.

digikata• 12 years ago

A CastAR version of Minecraft seems more fun to me anyway.

mingmecca• 12 years ago

Even though Notch writes that he wants to utilize VR for games and not 'social', I'm open to all the experiences that VR can provide, gaming or otherwise.

But I think the bigger issue here is I just don't want Facebook involved at all. Because all roads for Facebook lead to ads, and that is the last thing I want tagged to my eyeballs when I'm trying to enjoy my VR experience.

Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.

A sad day indeed.

kissickas2• 12 years ago

I agree. People are hating on social VR here, I think, just because they are upset to see the facebook acquisition and don't know how else to disparage the deal.

Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely upset about it due to facebook's clearly evil history - I don't know how anyone could deny this, given user exploitation and tracking[0] - and the fact that Oculus Rim values the combined ideas of virtual reality and augmented reality (which I don't think should be combined) as 1/10th the value of Whatsapp is beyond me.

However, is souped-up video conferencing really such a terrible idea? I wouldn't go to a 10-year high school reunion on Oculus, but I definitely would reunite with my college buddies every few weeks if we had something less lame than Skype or Google Hangouts to do it on.

[0] http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...

smacktoward5• 12 years ago

I don't even think they're hating on "social VR" as a concept, so much as they are on the specific involvement of Facebook.

Facebook has accumulated enough ill will over the years -- with its cavalier attitude towards users' privacy, with the multiple times it's screwed over developers who bet the farm on their platform, and so forth -- that people just automatically assume now that if you lie down with Facebook you get up with fleas. "Facebook" means technology that, at its heart, is looking for a way to screw you over. It's a tainted brand.

If it were any other company making this acquisition -- Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, anybody -- you'd see much more willingness to give it the benefit of the doubt. But people see the Facebook logo being slapped on the Rift and assume, from bitter experience, that this means their Rifts will be turned against them, in the same way that Facebook turned their browser and their smartphone and their network of friends against them.

masklinn• 12 years ago

I agree. People are hating on social VR here

Uh? Notch very specifically notes social VR would likely be great, and that he does not mind, just does not care.

mehwoot• 12 years ago

Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.

Since their market cap is roughly $100 billion, that figure would probably be closer to $100. Would you pay that much? It's an interesting thought.

mjfl• 12 years ago

This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe all the hype about VR. You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. If I want to have a conversation with a friend, I just want to see his/her face, I don't need the whole room simulated for me. Oculus will be a flash in the pan, and it's purchase by Facebook is just another example of the company stretching itself thin in order to grab a larger user base.

benched• 12 years ago

never

You take the long view, I see.

davorb• 12 years ago

You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle.

Here is a video of a grown man crying like a small girl. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4

uptown• 12 years ago

I don't doubt that it's a great experience - but that guy seemed to be playing things up for the sake of the camera IMO.

meowface3• 12 years ago

I agree regarding the every day activities thing: FaceTime and Skype are sufficient and will probably remain dominant (maybe in different forms) for decades.

But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.

a3voices2• 12 years ago

But you can't look at your phone, play with your pet, etc. while using VR. It actually removes value to have both your eyes occupied.

smacktoward5• 12 years ago

I would tend to agree. The "now strap this big, heavy thing to your head" part, especially, seems like a big hurdle standing in the way of VR becoming an everyday kind of thing.

Of course, technology gets smaller, so I wouldn't say "never."

anigbrowl3• 12 years ago

I think it's a good way from photorealism and have no especial desire to look at friends' weird avatars. But things I would find it compellingly interesting for including examining architecture and 3d models in general (where it would mesh nicely with the Leap controller if they sort out the problems with that - a it doesn't work well with monitors); space exploration, because I loooove me some astronomy; and staring at fractals, preferably while listening to loud techno music.

ssully• 12 years ago

I really appreciate that Notch seems to always communicate his opinions, whether I agree with them or not, in such an intelligent and fair way. I think he hit all the right points with this post especially about his initial investment in their kickstarter.

As of now I am looking at this acquisition with intense skepticism. I am interested in the Rift from a pure gaming perspective, and facebook hasn't proven themselves in that field yet, or at least not in the way that I agree with.

With that said I do look forward to seeing what happens with this. Good or bad I believe that this is something that will be talked about for a long time.

fernly• 12 years ago

"I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar?" -- But that was Second Life! I'm trying to imagine what 2L would have been like with convincing VR.

First, probably not anywhere near technical feasibility for at least several years. Remember the lag when a bunch of avatars were in one place? Or how long it took for a scene to fill in after you teleported? And the bandwidth, good lord...

But then I imagine what it would be like if the bandwidth and server performance issues were magically solved. And I realize that it was all imagined before decades ago, in Snow Crash[1].

[1]http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/05535626...

meowface3• 12 years ago

I wonder how the lag problems could be prevented. Even if 1 or 10 Gbps links were in every home, that isn't really going to help with latency if someone in Korea is trying to do something in true real time with someone in the US.

It's a big problem even for much less ambitious "VR"-esque worlds like MMORPG games. Usually they'll have to locate one server in Asia, one or more in Europe, one or two in America, etc. to accomodate for lag.

mambodog• 12 years ago

VR will be like the web. Eventually it will belong to all of us. Once it gets off the ground, no single company will be able to ruin it.

Just like touchscreen smartphones, initially we had the iPhone which is relatively locked down and controlled by a single vendor, but now we have cheap, commoditised hardware of acceptable quality.

More importantly, the real 'platform' for smartphones is the web, which is as open as any we've ever had. Eventually, VR will have something of the same.

I'm glad to see that at least Notch gets it.

jiggy20112• 12 years ago

I dunno, patents + network effects can give one a pretty damn good head start.

smacktoward5• 12 years ago

The Web belongs to all of us because the people who invented it made the incredibly generous decision to set it free. (I've written a little about how that decision was made here: http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that...)

I don't see anybody rushing to put their VR IP into the public domain.

deerpig2• 12 years ago

But a lot of technologies that could be used for VR, are free, VRML and Web3D, OpenGl etc.

zachinglis• 12 years ago

I wrote about about my views: http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-sitting-in-a...

But long story short - As Zuck said, it's a long bet. But one that most gaming companies won't want to be associated with. But they're not going after gaming anyway, gaming was 2 words in the press release. They're going after experiences, of which they have no prerequisites in place (healthcare, sports games, etc.)

I'll be looking forward to whoever shows up in place. It's just such a shame - I felt like they were the awesome people to look forward to seeing help change the gaming landscape.

rafe33• 12 years ago

I'm disappointed for oculus that anyone bought them. They had a chance to lead the next generation of companies in revolutionising media... To BE the next Sony. Kudos to Facebook for snatching them up.

dinkumthinkum• 12 years ago

Wow, this is really a great statement. I applaud him for this stance. I didn't really expect this reaction but it is a very pleasant surprise.

briantakita• 12 years ago

Kudo to Notch for taking a moral stance on the Oculus buyout. VR is going to change the world. Let's make it a positive change that respects freedom & autonomy, not a walled garden.

interpol_p6• 12 years ago

From Notch:

Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away?

Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really see a mainstream use for VR at all?

I can't see it. It's not the future of computing to me.

VR is incredible, it's magical and amazing. I've used the dev kits and the feeling of presence is awesome. The first time I wore the Oculus DK1 was the first time I felt teleported to a different location.

Despite all this, I still don't want to use my Oculus every day — not even once a week. It's a great system but the feeling wears off once you are immersed in the actual experience. It doesn't make my communication or consumption of information any more efficient, not like the way mobile Internet devices have done. Not even like the way my graphics tablet improved my ability to be artistic with my computer.

I see VR as dramatically changing a small but highly focused subset of the entertainment landscape, and being used in many niche areas (such as architectural visualisation). I can't see it replacing the way we use our computers in general. Perhaps I am just shortsighted, and I would be happy to be proven so.

meowface3• 12 years ago

I think I agree.

When it comes to video games, for people who are really into getting immersed it could see major usage. But for every day activities, I think that video conferencing and other forms of communication we already have basically cover those niches.

agumonkey• 12 years ago

In my imagination, computers will fade away to become as invisible as ubiquitous.

sillysaurus3• 12 years ago

The thing about the future is that it has a funny way of proving you wrong.

I think the vision outlined above is entirely possible. An integrated microphone with surround sound headphones was going to change gamedev forever. Who knows how that would bleed into other types of scenarios than gaming?

I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.

interpol_p6• 12 years ago

Yes, I think we'll have to see how the next few decades pan out to see whether the future holds more overt computing (VR, stuff stuck to your face) or more subtle computing (in your pocket, information when you need it). My money is on the latter for mainstream, with the former being reserved for a subset entertainment and niche uses.

I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus, sounds fun. But I can't see it beating the experience I have now: once a month I invite family and friends, we cook food, sit around and use the projector to watch a good movie on a large screen. If VR can beat that experience, I could see it going mainstream for entertainment.

My argument isn't that VR has no use, it most definitely does. It's that I can't see VR fundamentally changing how we use computers (like mobile has done).

danudey• 12 years ago

I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.

Really? I wonder if it would actually feel like watching a movie with someone, or if it would just feel like watching a movie alone.

VR, like social media, has the potential to connect us with people distant to ourselves, and distance us from those nearby.

lnanek2• 12 years ago

Social seems like a more mainstream use, honestly. 73% of adults are on a social network. Only 49% of homes have a game console. Owning a game console is a choice. Owning something like a webcam and a way to browse Facebook is almost a default by now. While what happened is bad for the gaming focus, it is much more likely to end up with broad stream VR adoption just like how webcams are built into most phones and laptops nowadays.

interpol_p6• 12 years ago

So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook? (Photos of real life events, the thoughts and feelings of others, commentary on recent news, memes.)

Edit: just because social is a bigger area than gaming, does not mean VR is more likely to take off in that area. It entirely depends on how you actually use it and what experience it gives you.

You could argue that video calls would kill voice calls because video calls are "more immersive". Obviously that didn't happen. You could also argue that voice calls would kill text communication, because obviously talking with your voice is more natural. Again, it didn't happen - text communication is bigger than ever, look at WhatsApp. In the space of social, ease and speed of consumption trumps immersion.

prawn2• 12 years ago

I can see myself, a few years in the future, using a VR headset daily. Watching movies, reading articles in a different format (just lying there rather than having to hold a book, Kindle or phone/tablet), watching something like TV with augmented social info, playing games, etc.

Years beyond that, if the resolution is there, I think virtual displays will replace the way many of us currently do work.

interpol_p6• 12 years ago

I don't share your opinion, but have some colleagues who do. I love VR and own the dev kit. I love playing with it.

I like to watch movies and TV shows with friends and family, not alone.

I cannot see VR as advantageous for the work I do: design, programming, painting, writing. I enjoy working outside or in cafes, where there are people and noises and things to eat and drink. Places to walk.

Most of my programming happens when I step away from computers. When I'm at a computer all I am doing is transcribing code and design, not being creative.

mahyarm• 12 years ago

I could also see it used as a "more compact" 2lbs laptop where you could have that portable 50" screen you always wanted, with cameras embedded in the headset so your not blinded. It would also allow you to not be hunched over in a portable situation, not require a desk per say and be outdoors without screen brightness issues, which are all issues with laptops.

foobarian• 12 years ago

Let's not forget that other application area that has historically proven very helpful at driving early adoption of new media. From the Gutenberg press, through celluloid, CDs, GIFs, to the Internet. Hint: starts with 'p', ends with 'orn.'

mcphage3• 12 years ago

mcphages-mbp:~ mcphage$ cat /usr/share/dict/words | grep '^p.*orn$'

palpicorn

peppercorn

pibcorn

pilcorn

plenicorn

plumicorn

popcorn

preadorn

preborn

prestubborn

pronghorn

Hmm... I think you mean "peppercorn", yah? Those motivated a lot of international trade.

ohwp• 12 years ago

Nobody can make predictions so it's also hard to see where the future is going.

'People watching a mobile device all the time!?' Look at we are now...

I wouldn't be surprised when we will be programming with a VR set so you can put almost unlimited lines of code on your retina.

rimantas2• 12 years ago

What's the point of putting unlimited lines of code on your retina, when your ability to comprehend them does not change a bit?

deong• 12 years ago

Nobody can make predictions so it's also hard to see where the future is going.

People make predictions all the time, many of them pretty good. Did a significant number of people think Color was going to be a smashing success?

I'll happily predict that the Pono is going to fail pretty thoroughly, because I simply don't believe many people are going to spend tons of money on clunky hardware that plays very expensive music at dubiously appreciable improvements in quality when they already carry a phone that has unfettered access to way more music at lower prices at quality they already think is fine.

Likewise, if anyone wants to take my $100 on a bet that in 2019, we won't be strapping a scuba mask onto our face to use Facebook, it's available.

pjc502• 12 years ago

I think you're entirely right. As other people have said, we're forgetting the previous VR boom, and also the various times Hollywood has tried to make 3D films stick. 3D TVs are currently flagging in sales. In my cupboard of "tech that was once must-have", I have a Kinect, a Wii Fit, a dancemat, and an NVIDIA 3D shutter-glasses set. I suspect VR will end up there too.

mercer• 12 years ago

I'd say the big issue with 3D films is that the '3D' is simply not good nor ubiquitous enough to justify buying and then wearing a geeky headset, or an expensive 3D TV. Not to mention the fact that there's a huge difference between full 3D in a rendered environment and semi-3D on a flat screen. And while I know very little about the previous VR boom, I suspect there were some significant issues that only recently have been solved (FPS, nausea, device size and price?).

In the same way that it took phone functionality as a trojan horse to mass tablet adoption, gaming might finally make 3D development gain critical mass with consumers.

To be fair, I haven't ever tried one so I can't comment on the experience itself. But from what I've heard, the developments in VR have scaled significant hurdles that make it something exciting and viable.

I think history has shown that sometimes seemingly-small developments in 'input' or 'output' can have a huge effect: fingers for touch screens (one of the biggest reasons for the iPhone's success, I think), a mouse and a GUI for computers (initially gathering dust in a research lab, if my history is correct), and arguably even something like retina displays.

Very often we underestimate the value of these developments, especially us geeks who are right on top of things and follow the small increments: "iPhone? I had a PDA x years ago (stylus though, but that's a minor detail)," or "tablet? it's just a bigger touch phone!"

(apologies for mostly using Apple as an example. I'm sure there are many others, but these just spring to mind.)

NextUserName• 12 years ago

Virtual Reality is going to change the world

Just like 3D televisions/displays did? I have heard this for over a decade and I am still not convinced.

rpdillon2• 12 years ago

3D TVs never made sense. VR is a wholly different analysis. I wrote a bunch about this back in 2012: http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/ http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-imme...

bane• 12 years ago

I just realized what this means...."free to play" VR games with a credit card slot right on the headset.

hawkharris• 12 years ago

Virtual reality has existed for thousands of years.

It began with performed and written stories. When storytelling through film became popular in the 20th century, proponents marveled at its technical potential: the ability to control viewers' eyes and to immerse them in a dream world. There were also critics who suggested it might be too immersive: detracting from face-to-face conversations.

Over time the technical "Wow" factor of film mostly faded. In its absence, viewers started to remember what made virtual reality feel real all along: the quality of the content. Sure, some people still marvel at 3D screenings and similar technology, but we mostly focus on the narratives rather than the medium.

If history is any guide, there is no medium for virtual reality. After the initial "Wow" factor of a new viewing experience subsides, we'll realize that the content is responsible for carrying us into a dream world.

BeggarsAll• 12 years ago

I completely agree with Notch on this one. Facebook are just buying Oculus because they need to show the investors and board they can innovate. Facebook is a dying product, they're losing users, making bad design decisions and know the only way to remain relevant is to buy up other business regardless of the niche.

sinak• 12 years ago

Facebook is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts.

This seems really true to me. Zuck gives the impression that he's in it for the power, and not for the love of technology. That's what makes this acquisition disappointing.

teemo_cute• 12 years ago

I'm surprise nobody mentioned its potential use by the sex industry for virtual/interactive porn. Think of the possibilities. If you what I mean...

cm1272• 12 years ago

We do.

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw

lispm• 12 years ago

What really would improve the world would be clean water for a few more people or a clean energy source.

VR not so.

neo_cs193p• 12 years ago

"Changing the world" is not automatically a good thing, and should never be a goal in itself. Same goes for "making money".

anentropic• 12 years ago

"Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away?"

These all sound like crap ideas

quasque3• 12 years ago

It seems a bit unhygienic having to strap one of these things to your face. Just imagine how filthy it would get after prolonged use. I hope if this stuff takes off then it's designed to be easily washable. The lingering scent of ingrained facial grease would somewhat ruin the immersive experience.

oulipian• 12 years ago

Fortunately, 80% of the games people will play on this involve avatars wearing space helmets! Ingrained facial grease just makes it more immersive!

deerpig2• 12 years ago

Why is everyone looking at VR in terms of what exists? VR is not gaming, though it shares many aspects of gaming. VR is not social, though it will overlap with a lot of how we use social today. It also won't be the Web, though, if it takes off, it will need to borrow the same open network-anyone-can-set-up-there-tent-where-they-want infrastructure.

But will Facebook be the company to make that happen? The great walled garden will turn into the great walled immersive world. If Facebook manages to pull that off we will all be poorer for it.

Virtual Reality is going to change the world

Related Stories