Wellll sorta, I guess.
It is also worth thinking hard about why 360 degree panoramic photos and 3D television have not set the world on fire – both very mature technologies that the public collectively turned its head and said meh to.
VR is supposed to be so much “different” and “better” that it is immune to such a reaction. But based on my experience with DK1, DK2, and a Survios (full body, two hand, 360 degree) … I don’t think it is.
Funny thing about that graph: Since the “hype” days, tablet sales have only increased.
And the only thing stopping it from increasing even more, is competition from “pocket tablets with better connectivity.”
It ain’t like the hype around the Segway or 3D TVs. The hype was replaced by a boring yet healthy and still-growing market.
For very very small values of “growing”, and in Apple’s case, “shrinking”… perhaps.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3055943/apples-ipad-sales-continue-to-suffer
They’re cool in real estate, but have little use outside of that. Worse, it’s hard for anyone to show off their 3D photos to their friends.
I’d probably have Lytro camera (not 360 degree, but other cool effects) right now if I could host the photos from it on my web site to show others. (You have to host on THEIR site, give them full rights to the photos, and abide by their rules on what you can post.)
All those movies you already paid for, you had to pay for again in 3D. If they were available.
Few people with the money to afford it were willing to do so for a movie they’d probably watch one (1) time. Or one more time in 3D. VR Games are a different matter: A good game, you can spend many hours on. And play through it again later. I’ve spent a lot of hours on the Halo series - it was a damn good investment.
But as I mentioned above, I don’t see VR going far beyond games. AR has more potential in the long run to be a standard tool like cell phones and tablets.
I kind of suspect that people who approach VR as a “market” rather than simply a technology are buying into hype, be it positive or negative. Tools are only an exercise in populist consumerism when people prefer to reduce them along those lines.
And the current attraction that resides in that space, in which you’re frantically trying to shoot lasers at evil day-glo colored robots surrounding you at all sides in a noisy video-arcade type of environment, isn’t stressful?
Sure, but you don’t get your name on a high-score list for successfully enduring a movie.
A couple days ago I saw a demo of a 360 degree video of a Disneyland ride on Google Cardboard. Kinda interesting to turn around and see the Mickey and Minnie costumed characters sitting on the boat behind you, I guess, but if ANY Disneyland attraction is calling out to be released as a 360 degree video it’s a remastered version of the Circlevision films. I should email someone that idea, I suppose.
I finally tried it tonight; I wear reading glasses, and Mr. Bells and the Kiddo wear glasses all the time. I could not get the focus sharp enough without my glasses on, it being so close to my face. Mr. Bells has been doing it without his glasses and somehow it’s working for him, go figure. I guess it’s really not good for people with poor near vision.
One of Kentucky Route Zero’s supplementary mini-episodes does something very much like that: http://kentuckyroutezero.com/the-entertainment/
There are even Oculus builds.
I remember as a youth being blown away by how awesome those CG effects were. Too bad it was such a terrible movie.
I read reports of not just particular people having nausea issues but also more general issues with: extended periods of use (i.e. more than 30 minutes), poorly optimized software, games with too much movement…
“It all was happening over there - did you miss it?”
When displaying yourself using an expensive gadget, it is essential to the experience to be able to monitor the awe and envy of random strangers around you…
This doesn’t happen in VR…
That’s as maybe, but I still want a Rift and No Man’s Sky for my birthday.
The problem with 3d tv (and movies) is that the gain is way smaller than the cost for most people.
You have to wear something uncomfortable and sit up straight and face your tv correctly… for a mildly cool visual effect now and then.
4k and HDR are similar incremental improvements, but without the downsides. 4k does have bandwidth downsides.
VR is a qualitatively different way to display a simulated world. It’s more like the transition from 2d scenes to 3d scenes (pac man vs doom). VR at least offers something big to offset the downsides.
I think it’s somewhat analogous to stereo sound. It can add a lot to the experience of a movie if it’s done well, but if you had to wear a pair of bulky headphones to enjoy stereo sound from your home theater system then most people would give it a pass.
The one thing I’m dreading is the inevitable VR commercials.
Someone recommends a nice free telepresence experience shot in some exotic location. You click on the link, and you unexpectedly find yourself inside a VR commercial.
Commercial: “Pepto-Bismol provides relief from diarrhea and upset stomachs! This is what your digestive tract looks like without Pepto Bismol.”
Viewer: “YEEEEEAAAARRGH!”
Commercial: “And here it is with Pepto Bismol!”
Viewer: “AAAAAAAH!”
Voice from outside the headphones: "Honey? Are you OK? Honey?
Viewer: “The corn!” (shudder) “The corn…” (sobbing)
Commercial: “We also protect from nausea!”
On the other hand I’ll be disappointed if the VR commercial that lets you experience an Oculus Rift using your Oculus Rift, isn’t just a “hall of mirrors” effect.
Who are you, that you should tell me to go. Go yourself, and be quick about it.
Furthermore, why does this system require me to hand over a list of all of my Twitter followers, not to mention my Twitter account username and password, before allowing me to comment? Is this system part of the NSA?
Wha…?
