back to article Why does the VR industry think 2016 is its year? It's the hardware, stupid

In 1994 this hack had his first taste of virtual reality, shooting pterodactyls in a blocky polygon world, and was assured by the vendor that 1995 would be the year VR really took off. The same thing was promised for 2000, 2004, 2010, and again for 2014 when Oculus burst onto the scene. Now some are proclaiming it'll be 2016, …

  1. John Sanders
    Pirate

    All I want from VR

    Is a moderately cheap headset and a plugin for either Kodi or VLC to simulate a cinema.

    Cherry on top if it can be done with other people on-line, this means I can then watch movies with my brothers and laugh our asses out together commenting the latest silly Hollywood occurrence.

    But this being an actual product that people may want no one will make, such is the state of the industry these days.

    Hence pirate flag!

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: All I want from VR

      Get a headset. Set a date and time for a conference call. Enjoy.

    2. Paul Shirley

      Re: All I want from VR

      Facebook is extremely likely to do something like that with Occulus, it's a better option for exposing you to their core product than gaming.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All I want from VR

      VR ONE Cinema from Zeiss plus Google Cardboard (either Android or Apple) is a pretty good sneak peak of where we're heading. Have used it on a plane before, it's pretty useable at the moment.

    4. tepescovir

      Re: All I want from VR

      Yes, but what you want is so, very, very limited in what vr can do. I dont know any of my friends that would buy it if you couldn't do gaming properly. I have a 105" cinema and use 3 x 42"screens for gaming, but yet i've barely used them since i got the occulus last year.

  2. jake Silver badge

    1994?

    We were doing fairly decent flight simulators in 64K of RAM in 1982ish.

    After that? It was all about "waste as much system resources as possible to keep employed".

    The mind absolutely boggles at the shear waste of computing capability.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: 1994?

      Well if all you are training is Cockpit Procedures, then yeah, 64k RAM (and a a whole fake cockpit of switches and instruments) will do it.

      However, if the now-more accessible techniques of simulating complex fluid dynamics and finite element analysis (to reduce, not replace physical testing) didn't save money and time in the design of aircraft, they wouldn't be used as widely as they are.

      In engineering, product design and architecture, CAD isn't isn't just about visualisation (though that itself is often invaluable); it is also a whole suite of tools to help groups of engineers - often from different disciplines - work together.

      At a more modest level, a man down the road from me makes wooden propellers for light aircraft. His CAD needs aren't as sophisticated (single user, standard file system), but to model new propellers and generate cutting paths for his CNC router he still benefits from a modern, consumer-class desktop.

      For sure, one of the influences that has made 3D CAD cheaper is that GPUs were made in huge numbers (thus sharing the R&D and tooling costs amongst more people) for the price-concious gaming market, so on that point I will concede your point that a lot of computing power is 'wasted' on mere entertainment.

  3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    VR has been discussed in several threads during tha last weeks, so sorry for repeating something that's already been said:

    For VR the biggest obstacle to success is that you look like a dick using it.

    1. John Sanders
      Holmes

      Didn't they said the same about phablet users?

      That they looked moronic with these enormous phones?

      Now look at all these people using large iPhones, best thing ever.

      Relax, VR will get there as son as the experience is good (or if there is good porn)

      The only "you look moronic" situation I can foresee while using VR is if you are caught drooling using it while watching porn.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "we've come a hell of a long way"

    Well, as far as bells and whistles are concerned, yes, VR looks a lot better than it used to. It's still not "reality" though, and anyone who thinks that they'll play a Gears Of War in VR is in for a bit of disappointment.

    As far as needing a bucket after a short while is concerned, we haven't gotten much further though, as said gamer will likely discover rather quickly.

    1. Boothy

      Re: "we've come a hell of a long way"

      Why pick Gears Of War?

      It's a 3rd person game, and personally I don't think 3rd person is all that suitable for VR immersion, at least not without some major change to how the games are produced/shot etc.

      I've always thought 3rd person games are less immersive anyway, as to me it just looks like your controlling something on screen, rather than actually being there in the action like you are (or at least seem to be) in a 1st person game.

      VR will be best suited to driving/flying type games, where you are in the cockpit/drivers seat, or standard 1st person games.

      Although you could still be right on the need for a bucket, at least for FPS games (driving/pilot games don't really have this issue, even with the current dev kits).

      Hopefully the retail versions of at least the high end devices (Oculus and the HTC/Valve Vive) should resolved most of this for the FPS type games (where it shows up the worse). Although I can't see the Gear VR being able to cope with FPS games all that well, although it will probably do driving/flying/movies etc without issue.

      For reference, I've played Elite Dangerous on a DK2 for several hours without any issues.

      1. GregC

        Re: "we've come a hell of a long way"

        VR will be best suited to driving/flying type games, where you are in the cockpit/drivers seat

        Yep. I know* a few people who are using DK2's now in Project CARS and the general consensus is that you'd have to pry VR from their cold dead hands, and I've read similar things about Elite: Dangerous. The interesting thing there is that both these games/sims have been created with the VR option in mind from early on, and it seems to show**

        *have communicated with over the internet...

        **In spite of the numerous bugs that pCARS has had, the VR side seems to have been pretty solid, at least from what I've read.

        1. Boothy

          Re: "we've come a hell of a long way"

          From what I've read, Braben had a hands on with an early Oculus, and basically went "Wow, this is the future of gaming".

          He then went back to the Frontier studio and got the developers to redesigned the in game UI to be fully immersive and VR friendly. So ever since early Alpha, the Elite game has had a focused on VR.

          1. DropBear

            Re: "we've come a hell of a long way"

            It might be the future of gaming, but as long as it costs $600 for what is essentially still a gimmick at the end of the day, it'll be a very, very niche future indeed.

            1. Boothy

              Re: "we've come a hell of a long way"

              These are just the initial costs, early adopter pricing. Which is the norm for emerging technologies.

              For comparison, early tablets, like the Galaxy tab were over $700 dollars back in 2010. A far more capable current device is under $300, even sub $100 budget devices are more capable now, than the $700 devices were back in 2010.

              The market for VR will be smaller than the tablet market, I just chose it as a fairly recent 'new tech'. So I suspect prices will not drop as far, or as fast, as they did for tablets, but it will happen.

              2016 will be for early adopters, those that already have $600+ GFX cards fitted in desktop gaming rigs, or have $1,500+ gaming laptops (You can get a GTX 980 in a laptop/notebook form factor).

              By 2017 we'll have v2 retail kit out, and perhaps even some more VR produces, so more competition. The market will have matured as well, so more VR content, and the costs will come down.

              Plus of course by next year, you'll have 2nd hand first gen gear available on ebay etc. Just like you can buy the DK2 gear now.

  5. Neil Lewis

    Dirt cheap, but good enough

    My own belief is that for VR to become mainstream (i.e. wanted and used by a much wider audience than just the tech-savvy and early adopters) it has to be dirt cheap to put test the water, but good enough to make users want more. And there has to be lots of content people want to use.

    Dirt cheap because it has to be a low risk/no risk thing to try out for those with a vague idea that it might be fun. Lots of content because average people just want to enjoy it, not get excited by the technology.

    Google cardboard is capable of delivering the 'wow' factor at a cost which makes it a throwaway item, provided you have a suitable 'phone. And that means a huge chunk of the population in most of the developed world.

    Content can be delivered via YouTube, a very familiar channel. Once users see what Cardboard can do, they'll want more sophisticated headsets and be prepared to pay for them, so it would surely be easy enough for other manufacturers to produce compatible devices and jump on that train.

    The main obstacle right now seems to be making it easy (and cheap) to create the content. Cost of a rig and hardware capable of managing the post processing in a reasonable time are obstacles which will stop all but the most determined from becoming content producers for now.

    1. Boothy

      Re: Dirt cheap, but good enough

      Quote: <em"The main obstacle right now seems to be making it easy (and cheap) to create the content. Cost of a rig and hardware capable of managing the post processing in a reasonable time are obstacles which will stop all but the most determined from becoming content producers for now."</em>

      Isn't that dependant on the content that's being created?

      If your talking about games producers, which is where I'd suspect most of the content is going to come from, at least initially, then those people will likely already have all the equipment needed for creation anyway, and might only need a software update to their chosen 3D engine. (They might need to by a headset to test though). All major game engines now have VR support, even the free Unity engine, which lots of people now seem to be using (even a recent AAA PC game used it), has included VR support for some time at no cost.

      Producing VR videos/movies/TV, or VR scanning of real world locations etc, that's going to need investment, but I can't see this side of things taking off for a while yet, until VR at home becomes more common.

  6. Tikimon
    Angel

    Bucket accessory - removable by exposure?

    I strongly suspect that the need for a bucket cannot be prevented by the system design, but CAN reliably be eliminated through exposure and training. Two examples...

    Actual flight training. Many people hurl on their early flights, including the great Chuck Yeager. With some exposure, their ears figure it out and it's not a problem anymore. Same with seasickness.

    Virtual exposure. I love air combat sims and have had many spectators get very queasy watching me dogfight. That's not even 3D VR, they're only looking over my shoulder. The problem is their brains trying to keep track of the perceived environment. One or two regulars have gotten over it, and even enjoyed soaring about with me like a leaf on the wind.

    To summarize, I don't believe the bucket effect can be prevented through system design. However, progressive exposure-based training can probably build tolerance without losing the user. Someone needs to start thinking about that. The best VR will lose users forever otherwise.

  7. tepescovir

    Used both my occulus and various phone vr apps and there is no comparision between them, the occulus is way, way ahead of the phones. The phones simply do not have the positional sensors to due real vr justice. At least when gaming is involved.

    Hopefully the tech will improve to the point that we can have Vr contact lenses that run from your smartphone and pc etc, but thats still a decade away i would believe

  8. WylieCoyoteUK
    Holmes

    VR, 3D, Camera phones

    They are all the stuff of 60s science fiction, yet they all exist now.

    Just not in a form that many people want to use them.

    And some people will not be able to use them without a bucket, because of purely physical variations and limitations of human beings.

    About 15% of the population cannot "see" 3D, and even more end up with a headache after a short session of watching.

    I expect the VR intolerant will be an even larger segment.

  9. David Pylyp

    You could also view it on your Apple Watch

    But that would be a brilliant waste right?

    If I was looking at a house or a condo in brilliant 3D I would want the largest screen possible; so while I might engage with my iphone or ipad, I would quickly move to a large screen unit.

    But you knew that right?

    Matterport Technology displays in Hi Res HI density Graphics on a large screen.

    David Pylyp

    Matterport Toronto

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like