QOTW: Was virtual reality just a fad?

[Saracen999]

Surveys can't help. If the industry wants to go forward with VR, eventually it will, no matter what health issues. Think about the radiation effects of mobile phones to human health: we still don't know the truth after almost 20 years of use.

It's not about whether the industry wants to goo forward. If there's a profit in it, they will .... unless somehow it caused health issues, like Thalidomide, and I've not seen anyone suggest it does. Even if 50% of people couldn't use it (and I doubt the true level is anywhere near that high), that's no reason the 50% thaan can use it should be prevented. So yeah, it will, and should, go forward provided the market is big enough. Which comes full circle to "Fad, or not". And it's not, IMHO. It might still be a little too early in the cycle to see the full potential, though.

There were those that thought TV was a fad. And, that colour TV was an expensive gimmick and wouldn't take off.

Ooops.

But then, 3D TV. I always did think that was faddish, but got a number of jeers on here for saying I couldn't see the point. With VR, I certainly can see the point, though cumbersomecheadsets need to improve and prices come down (both of which will happen, eventually).

On the other hand, I bought into mobile phones back in analog 1st Gen days, and lots of people though they were a business-only tool at best, and a fad at worst. Again, oops. But then, who could predict smartphone capabilities developing from v1 cellphones?

Personally, the only way I see VR long-term failing is if something better (maybe AR) comes along. Though, it's worth noting than better tech doesn't always win out over inferior. For example, betamax v. VHS. Even perhaps LP over CD, though that one is different, and still contentious as to which one is "best", and it depends on the criteria you use to judge.

[DanceswithUnix]

Personally, the only way I see VR long-term failing is if something better (maybe AR) comes along.

Why do people keep looping back to AR and VR competing? Those really are different and need to succeed or fail on their own terms.

In terms of phone apps I think AR has already succeeded (Google translate for example is utter magic), but given you can just point a phone at something that makes AR *headsets* a hard sell.

But AR instead of VR? I no more want to use AR to simulate climbing up my living room wall instead of a mountain (The Climb) or fly my sofa around the stars rather than a Cobra Mk3 (Elite) than I would want to watch a film in the cinema car park instead of the darkened and sound insulated cinema screen. Immersion in another place and/or time is very different from enhancing where you are.

There is a good chance that VR headsets will evolve to use colour cameras for their tracking and so be able to do AR as well, the underlying technologies share a lot. But the use cases I am struggling to see any overlap at all.

[John_Amstrad]

Further reading:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

[Ttaskmaster]

I quite liked 3D films, but there is a social problem that if one person in the group you are seeing a film with doesn't want to do 3D

If they want to be antisocial, they can go watch it in the 2D screen alone!

Nah, generally we'll discuss it in advance, so those with issues aren't forced to be the bad guys in the decision.
I doubt we'll have to worry about it anytime soon, though.

Agreed. I've never said the tech is bad. Just what it does to me.

Apologies - I didn't mean to imply or suggest that you did.
That's just the general resort of people who expect plug & play, or for things to 'just work' in all walks of life... I find most of them are happy with Apple products which do 'just work', but then get upset because they just work - They don't do anything more than that!

His point about surveys was that to distinguish between those getting ill because of bad setup from those getting ill because of some inherent problem (liked eyes) can only be a guess unless they have more than anecdotal evidence to go on. It needs testing which, at least at that time, some years back, hadn't been done.

Oh, I see... yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

But then, 3D TV. I always did think that was faddish, but got a number of jeers on here for saying I couldn't see the point.

It was faddish, but only because there was no decent content for it.
3D should be like Surround Sound™, in that it enhances the experience but you shouldn't immediately notice it. Instead people treated it like a shiny new thing to be shown off and exhibited at every possible moment at the most extreme extents of the technology... which is exactly what has made RGB so hated instead of embraced.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675

One person, who does not specialise in such medical matters, has said that another person, who also does not specialise in such medical matters, has told him that excessive VR use might have exacerbated a condition that he already had and was likely to have gotten worse regardless of whether he ever in his life used VR or not.....

That is not exactly cause for screaming round forums, asserting with definitive authority that we are liable to end up jibbering cabbages from using VR!!

Furthermore, just about every other issue mentioned in that article can be avoided or resolved by..... any takers...... Yep, correctly setting up and configuring your device.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

Playing in a cluttered environment - Don't. That's why your device instructions say not to. If you get brain damage from tripping over room clutter while wearing VR, you're being an idiot. That's your fault, not that of the technology.

Myopia - No worse than what we already have with VDU usage, and arguably less as you can adjust the headsets to suit, but in reality not as people don't make those adjustments just as they don't sit at the requisite distance from their screens.

Motion sickness, eyestrain, headaches, nausea - Most of that is down to incorrect device setup. That claptrap about tricking the eye is, as I said, claptrap - It follows the same principles by which optometrists measure and, where necessary, manipulate your vision to improve it, which is why VR can sometimes be used to actually fix visual problems. The supposed 'tricking' of the brain is actually just your natural focussing ability, no actual trickery involved.
The only time you'll get discordance resulting in brain-trickery problems is when the developer has not correctly implemented the game, which again is technically part of the setup.

Damaged hearing from high volumes - This is nothing new and has nothing to do with VR giving you brain damage. It sounds like they were running out of ideas halfway through the article and are now just padding things out to bleat about, to fill the word count.

The rest - Yeah, PTSD from watching Sesame Street in VR, despite manufacturers telling you this isn't for young children.... Seriously, at this point the article has gone utterly off the rails and lost any semblance of credibility. The International Enquirer could do better!


So thanks for your concern, but I understand a lot more than your source informants about how this stuff works and why it's not a problem.

[Dribble]

It is very cool, however the biggest problems of current VR are:
1) it still makes you feel ill - much better then old 90's VR setups but still a long way off not making you ill. Smooth movement is probably always going to make you ill (e.g. sitting on the rollercoaster).
2) it takes too much space - I have to clear out my whole dining room to have space, then bring my PC downstairs and cable it all in all just to play VR. That's just too much hassle.
3) standing up waving your arms around just isn't very relaxing and we play games to relax.

Lesser complaints are:
1) wires are irritating.
2) headsets are too heavy.
3) resolution/fov could be better.
4) sensors still a bit jerky - they require line of sight and get blocked if you just happen to be standing the wrong way.

[svenz]

I think there is huge potential to VR. The problem is it is incredibly inconvenient at the moment. But when you have those top experiences like Alyx, you realize how awesome VR can be.

I'd say the top problems right now for VR are:
1. Lack of AAA titles. Too many crappy mobile-esque games that aren't good enough.
2. Space to set it up, expense of a PCVR headset and gaming computer. It seems like Quest is the only thing moving in the right direction to fix these issues. All the PCVRs are just enthusiast headsets imo.
3. Issues with comfort are still not solved. Getting sick in VR games is still a problem (solvable, but it's hard). Headsets are still bulky and uncomfortable for long sessions.

[Saracen999]

....

Apologies - I didn't mean to imply or suggest that you did.
That's just the general resort of people who expect plug & play, or for things to 'just work' in all walks of life... I find most of them are happy with Apple products which do 'just work', but then get upset because they just work - They don't do anything more than that!


Oh, I see... yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

....

No apology needed. I was just pointing that, yeah, I have seen people make that type of claim (not necessarily here) but I do try to keep my comments (on this, at least) restricted to know .... which is what happens to me, but I can only guess at why it does.

....

Oh, I see... yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

....

Well, yes and no. Properly done, and with a sufficiently large and unbiased sample, you can be statistically sure, within a given confidence level. Extrapolations only go so far, but careful statistical sampling goes much further.

Certainty? No. Or rarely. But a pretty high level of confidence? Yup.

For instance, that is a large part of the principle of company audits. Work out the 'population' size, such as sales invoices. Determine the necessary sample size (typically, between 30 and 100 invoices). Select a random start (I used to use the serial number on whatever bank note I pulled from my wallet, but in the days of phone payments, etc, something else would have to be used). Then, test every x-th invoice, starting with the random (or more accurately, for the pedants out there, pseudo-random) one from the first two or three digits of the note serial number.

There's a bit more to it, but the error level you find tells you if you can, or can't, have 95% confidence, in that aspect of the accounts. And it works for anything from the corner grocery shop to a multi-national corporation.

Bear in mind, this process is looking for systemic errors, not the odd one-off mistake or fraudulent invoice, as would a sampling of people with problems with VR. The same process applies to everything from basic market studies to political opinion polls, though the latter is (much, much) more complicated both sample selection and avoiding inaccurate results by people .... erm, lying.

You won't get a 100% certain result, but should be able to get an accurate enough result to lend strong credence to either confirming or refuting the theory that people with VR do or don't have background issues, like sight, etc.

[Ciber]

Was it just a fad? It may still be a fad in progress but at the moment not everyone that might want to try it has tried it. For example I want to try it and it looks like the new quest has removed enough barriers to entry such as high price, lots of cables and base station, for me to actually get one. I got google cardboard a few years ago and that is good enough for me to want to try more but the price put me off at the time. So it's not a fad that's over, I'm sure of that.

[Ciber]

Further reading:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675

"admitted that he could spend up to six hours a day wearing a headset" OK so the takeaway from that article is that using a headset for 6 hours a day every day might be too much. If you have an underlying eye condition. Bit of a sensationalist headline TBH. The headline should be "Game developer exacerbates underlying sight issue after over using VR headset" but would probably get less clicks.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

"Parents need to be careful, active and participating, because the VR medium is more powerful than traditional media. But with proper adult supervision, using it infrequently, I think it's going to turn out to be just fine."

Yep. Not too worried about brain damage. It might actually benefit your brain more than watching TV. I remember all the warnings about watching too much TV in past. As in if your children (I was one at the time) might damage their eyes if they watched more than an hour of TV a day or sat too close the the screen. Which led to lots of us sitting at the opposite corner of living rooms from 14" TVs and not being able to read text on the screen.