How universal do you think vr will be in the coming years project-wise?

After reading some general development rules it sounds like it will be project specific for awhile. Meaning games and apps that have vr support will have been made for vr from the ground up. Or do you think it will be more universal? For example grand theft auto 5 vr and gran turismo vr could be created without completely changing the game and just including dynamic cameras and some extra tweaks. Or will simulation sickness keep vr a game/app specific platform? And if so is that a statement on the early days of vr or a statement on vr forever in general. Thoughts?

Simulation sickness, from everything I’ve read and seen is a high priority for fixing, and oculus and others are working on it and have improved it quite a bit (thank you 90 fps) But it’s different for everyone, just like getting on a real roller-coaster or tilt-a-whirl. (Tilt-a-whirls mess with me) I got myself up to an hour playing halflife 2 in the dk2. So you can also adapt to simulation sickness. So I think it will be an “Early days” kind of thing, not a “forever” kind of thing, as it gets better and better. But some people, no matter how good it becomes, will still have to deal with “SS”. But that’s what Dramamine is for.
Yeah, you will have to tweak your project to be maximally effective in VR. Grand Theft Auto, I would think, would need more tweaking than Gran Turismo, just because it’s a runnin’ and gunnin’ and driving, lot of jerky movement game. Where as Gran Turismo, for the most part, is a cockpit type game, and those do pretty well in VR. (see Elite Dangerous)
I think VR will be pretty big. Universal, say, like the smartphone, mmmm. . . yeah, I think so. We are right on the rising of a tidal wave, I think, just don’t know how it’s going to crash onto the beach. Will we end up more VR or AR, or a combo of both, seperate glasses; Oculus and hololens, or Vive and Magic Leap. I guess from a developers point-of-view, Epic, Unity, Microsoft, Valve, whoever, just keep providing the tools, so we can grab hold and keep up.

When I first started looking into the up-rise of VR it all seemed real exciting and the next huge thing. As I’ve read more into it (though still never actually tried it) I am getting bit more skeptical. The fact that it is difficult to use for more then an hour before feeling woozy isn’t a great sign, early days or not. It also completely closes the user off from the external world, it is a very non-social form of entertainment. Which is fine for some apps but may forever be kept platform specific for that reason. I could be wrong though, as I said I have never myself experienced it. When I first heard of VR I thought it was the next step to almighty techno god, imagine extreme virtual worlds blazing around you in complete VR…but after looking into it more the whole thing seems like it may (for awhile at least) be more of an app-specific platform (which is not nearly as exciting in my opinion even if those apps are real cool for what they are). Just a few skeptical thoughts.

It seems to me AR and VR aren’t the only two contenders, also increasing in power is good ol fashion screens that are getting higher and higher quality. In the excitement for AR and VR it seems easy to forget that 4k screens with 3d capabilities right out of the box (like nintendo 3ds) could be around the corner and probably won’t be app specific (all apps, all games, all movies, all television programs could implement the power of 4k, 3d entertainment without the use of any head set at all). Imagine phone screens with 3d “layers” in them. 4k Curved screens that wrapped around the user when gaming (like those screens space museums). It could be that hardware development efforts and interests may be ultimately better placed into the upgrading of good ol fashion screens to be 3D, spherical, dynamic and interactive in other creative ways. It seems Nintendo is going with the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy. They may, as usual…be on the right path in focusing on upgrading screen technology to new heights rather then trying to adopt a new, introspective platform altogether.

Lets not forget interactive projectors being beamed on spherical screens (like space museum again). If we can have amazing vr, ar AND screen technology that is great. But if all this focus on vr takes hardware designers off of coming up with new ways to simply increase screen technology in new creative ways…the whole thing could be more of an exciting, but ultimately off course De-tour for a few years (for those of us who are more interested in developing for universal systems).

But who knows, time will tell. It’s exciting to see what is around the corner regardless.

You have to build VR from the ground up. We will have plugins, common interfaces, and libraries to help you slot everything into place as well as common templates, but there isn’t a great path forward in terms of converting old games to VR. That said I can see games having a VR optional/alternative mode added as well as mods and hacks for old games, but these won’t be the best experiences.

In terms of how big VR will be, I urge you all to consider VR from a productivity perspective outside of just pure entertainment. When VR is done right you are somewhere else, a physical location, and your memories are of being there and not of watching something and these are powerful memories. Consider also that you can build an interface around spatial muscle memory and common concepts where you can intuitively grasp interaction; crucially you can do things in VR that you simply cannot physically achieve in the real world. If you then build a bridge between the real world and VR you will start to get all sorts of applications that will enable us all to be more efficient, connected and global.

To predict a bit further, I say it won’t be a dystopian future where we are all plugged in and using VR 24/7, but an aspect of your life. It will be a technology of empowerment where traveling to virtual social places for discussion, entertainment and work there will eventually become a staple of society.

And here we are at the beginning of it all, we’re all defining and discovering concepts that will be potentially used everyday. So don’t stop now; explore, discuss, collaborate, and share your experiences. Help define that future.

Funny to see people having an opinion on something they haven’t even experienced. Try it first, then come and tell us why you still skeptical (or not) after firsthand experience.

This is entirely dependent on the game. Elite Dangerous, for example, I can play for days on end, and have. Did a weekend experiment were I lived in Elite. That was kind of… odd; to wake up in a cockpit in space. Yea… fun times. Other games, such as HL2, I could only play for 5 minutes at the most.

Tell me, how is playing in VR and playing online with friends any different? I can’t see them, they can’t see me anyways, so this is a non-existent issue, especially for PC players. For multi-player console where you have friends over and you party while gaming, well… VR isn’t really for that, as VR is intended to port you to a different place. No more pretend that you’re in that game, now you are. However, I have seen a game being pushed where it is a socializing living room type of game. One person is in VR, and the other people are either throwing stuff at you, or providing intel for you (see the bomb diffusing game for PSVR).

Now, you were half-way correct in a huge downside for VR and being cut-off from the world, and that is, if you’re taking care of someone / parent. But… as a caregiver, you should have a bit more common sense than to completely cut yourself out of the loop on that one.

Corrent. Some games / movies / experiences / etc… lend themselves towards VR, while others do not. Games that require ALOT of information processing for example currently do not lend themselves towards VR, but that is due to a screen tech issue. Once the DPI increases substantially, then even information processing in VR will be more rewarding. Why have 3 screens, or 6 screens, or a wall of screens (in a NOC for example)… when you can have as many screens as you could possibly want, for a small percentage of a fraction of the cost.

Stop… just stop right there. You cannot compare a 3D screen to a VR headset. That is like comparing a motorcycle to a mountain bike, just because there is one rider and 2 wheels. Do me a favor, go to a Best Buy, or find a Samsung rep (the ones that go from store to store) and get a demonstration of the GearVR. If the store doesn’t have one, then ask the sales guys to contact the Samsung rep for an appointment. It’s easy to do, and every Samsung rep is being issued a GearVR (from what I’ve been told), so you can get a demo quite easily if you truly wanted it.

Unlike any other platform I have experienced there is no way to convey what VR is actually like. With 4k TV screens, Imax cinema and 3d TV’s you can imagine fairly accurately what the experience will be like. VR nope. One of the weird things about the DK2 is how dream like the whole memory is after you take off the headset. When you finish playing a game on a 3d screen or watching a 4k film and your thinking about it afterwards your remembering something from this world. When you take off the DK2 and you are thinking about it afterwards you…??? and this is the bit words can’t explain or describe and why people say you have to try the rift to understand the ???

Carmack said it best, or perhaps, more accurately.

“People have memories of playing Minecraft… I have memories of being inside of Minecraft”.


Surprised there is only one of you. I was expecting at least 3. I posted that I haven’t tried it in the second sentence of my post. Either take the warning and respond anyway or take the warning and stop reading there. Where my skepticism was coming from was made clear and the acknowledgement of the validity of said skepticism by the lack of actually trying it was also made clear in the second sentence.

I am not referring to the relationship between you and the other users you are playing with, I am referring to you the user playing…and the external real world. Your wife in the kitchen baking, your kids in the room next door playing on the bunk bed, sitting on the bus and not wanting to miss your stop, being home a lone playing a game and having chicken cooking in the oven etc. Screens allow user to embrace the world they are a part of but are not completely cut off from there surrounding world. I am not coming from a “oh boo hoo kids won’t play outside anymore because they will be in virtual world” stand point. I actually don’t care much about that. I am just saying, you can interact with me thousands of miles away though the screen on your phone AND simultaneously be baking a cake AND watching Seinfeld on a separate screen AND making sure your kids are ok outside kicking the soccer ball all at the same time.

That is the question though. Is it a screen tech issue…meaning in 2020 VR WILL be used for high processing apps or will they be too prone to epilepsy, sickness etc. to grasp those games types of games/apps forever? Will VR forever need to not use screen shake, high saturation, high velocity fluctuations etc. or is that just an initial period where that is the case now but the technology will become smoother in time? Or perhaps the next generations will adapt to it and the woozy stuff will go away. After reading the development rules it just seems a lot of the developers most used tricks are non-advisable.

Is it like comparing a motorcycle to a mountain bike? Or is it like comparing a laser to a light bulb? Lasers are FAR superior to light bulbs in many ways. Are lasers EVER going to become a larger market then light bulbs? Probably not. Screens can be placed ANYWHERE and be used in anyway without alienating the user from there duties as a human being here in the realm we naturally emerged from.

I know it sounds like I am against it or scared of VR or something. I am really not, in fact I think completely going into vr in the future is the equivalence of heaven. This is the beginning phase so I am all for it. I just want to see if I can’t stir up a few sparks and see how you folks respond. I am excited about where it will all go regardless.

The best way to explain it is this. Comparing a 3D screen to a good VR headset is like comparing your friend telling you about a movie he saw to actually seeing it yourself on a IMAX screen.

I think a better example would be comparing apples with oranges, none is better, they’re just different.

For VR to be universal it needs more content first. Any new consumer technology is going to die if there’s nothing to do with it, just look how most people gets bored with their DK after the initial wow effect.

You are focusing on the comparison between the direct experience of the two and alienating the implication of the tool in daily social conditions. My (admitting hypothetical) comparison is attempting to include the experience as well as how the hardware will be used in daily life in the home, on the go through the phone or some other device and in society at large (in the car, on the bus, on the billboards at the mall, billboards on the freeway etc. It is obvious how more sophisticated and creative screen technology could possibly be brought into our current social structure in the coming decades, VR requires not just a platform switch but a bit more fundamental shift in our daily lives as a whole. Or is that thought a mistake? If not then is it a really cool…possibly decent sized…but ultimately niche market? This is what I am trying to dig out of you, how will VR compare with advancing screen technology in this wider sphere of implementation? Are the two competing or will they work together? Will screens as a whole be a thing of the past?

Just food for thought, one future business man could say lets try to market vr glasses and contacts to the mainstream. Another could say, no one wants to wear glasses when they don’t have to and no one wants to put contacts in there eye balls everyday just to use the internet…why not just create holographic die that creates a screen on the users hand…which has more mass market appeal?

That is why I said comparing laser beams to light bulbs. One is concentrated and intense but special purpose and the other open, less direct but has more general purpose, universal usage.

It seems VR has two concrete hangs ups to solve (again coming from someone who hasn’t used it so take it with a grain of salt if you’d like).

1.Making the experience universal as far as what type of content can be created for it. As long as there is a list of rules (fairly large ones) for game developers, app developers and VR movie directors to ensure the experience is fluid, that is a hang up.

2.To make it a mainstream product you have to figure out a way to deliver the magnificence of VR, without the user requiring to put on a helmet of sorts. It is a bit early to say for sure, but it is hard to imagine the wider public…even future generations to be willing to indefinitely wear goggles, glasses or stick contacts in there eyes every morning for VR accessibility.

It’s a bit sci-fi sounding, but I wonder if people could put mini projectors on there foreheads (it would be like the camera on the back of your phone in the middle of the forehead, like a third eye sort of thing). It would project an image down in front of the eyes that would be extremely clear from the user’s perspective but could only be seen from that angle. The user could then be in virtual world but could also focus there eyes on the world around them at the same time without any object on there heads or in there eyes. For the full vr experience the user would have to simply go in a dark room and put on some headphones (or perhaps the more traditional vr units would be used for full immersion).

Maybe thats dumb but for VR to be accepted into the wider sphere it does seem like some extra brain bashing has to go into figuring out how exactly would mainstream, daily use units be marketed to the public.

It’s hard to imagine the society paying large amounts of money to get a car, paying for gas, constant repairs, taxes… it sounds crazy to build the cities around cars instead of people. But these days is how society works. If the product is perceived as something that you need, any inconvenience is ignored. Hi, smart phones :rolleyes:


You’re too caught up in your perceptions. It is not all that difficult to deliver a fluid experience, it just requires some pre-planning and thought behind optimization. I’m not entirely sure what all of these “rules” that you don’t want to see gone from the experience? Camera Shake? Sure, you need to avoid that. Depth of Field? You can throw that out of the window because human eyes have their own DOF filters :wink:

If you’re referring to the needed framerates… well, all games need framerate. For example, the PS4. Target framerate is between 30-60 FPS. But according to your theory, that is a hang-up. Why can’t you create a game that runs at 1 FPS? BTW, the 75 - 90 fps target is for the same reason as to why you don’t want to use Camera Shake. It feels like you’re head is swimming (significant nausea).

As far as making the experience universal… I have no idea what you mean by that.

As for point 2… well, that is the job of the advertising department. You’re trying to argue about VR, but your statement about delivering the magnificence of VR is universal for every product out there. How do you deliver the magnificence of a 4k TV without the person seeing it? How do you deliver the magnificence of a Subaru CrossTrek without the person driving it? How do you deliver the magnificence of the taste of a Big Mac without the person tasting it?

You’re making mountains out of mole-hills.

Yes camera shake, depth of field (which personally I thought would of been AWESOME with VR), saturation and most notable is applications needing to not include changes in momentum and velocity. Is Spider Man VR possible for example? I don’t mean a constant flowing first person movie of you swinging between buildings but actually controlling yourself swinging between the buildings of new york, stopping on a window frame to look at that oncoming traffic and then continuing on to chase after the bad guys flying through trucks on the road below? Would apps like that be possible or would they be too prone to sickness?

Frame rate capabilities are constantly increasing with each generation of consoles/computers so I don’t see that as a potential issue. I was referring more of the possibly more fundamental developmental draw backs like no changing of momentum, flashing lights while at high velocity etc.

I mean making VR able to play all forms of media rather then only the specific apps/movies that were created for the vr platform specifically. Like a movie is not platform specific, it can be played on any television, computer, phone, playstation, dvd player, streamed, tablet or projector. The director of a movie just makes the movie and it can be played everywhere without having to think to himself…“well I’d like a jungle chase scene…but I am not sure if this particular scene will come out right on this particular platform so I guess I better re-write the script to better fit one of the platforms this movie will be delivered to”. Will future movie directors have to make a choice before hand whether there film will be for the vr platform OR the non-vr platform. Less techy producers, writers and developers (those outside the sphere likely on this board) want the platform there production will be distributed to, to bend around there creativity…they don’t want to have to bend there creativity around the platform. That is what I mean by “universal”.

See I don’t think your being honest about that. The whole point I am making is if you want someone to see a 4k t.v. you simply put it at the entrance of the store and you guarantee every single person walking in, all ages, sexes and economic status is going to be exposed to not only the screen as a product but also the sequence of products that the screen is playing. That is to say, you could GUARANTEE every person walking through Fry’s is exposed to a 4k televion, a big mac hamburger AND a subaru cross trek all in under 40 seconds regardless of whether they CHOOSE to expose themselves to it OR NOT. That is the POWER of a screen I fear the techs are forgetting but the corporations and larger sphere of production will not. VR is a helmet and does not have that open “light bulb” like quality yet, and if it is to have that quality we have to put our heads together to realistically figure out how the vr platform will achieve that.

Your most likely right but I like digging into it because I think acknowledging and thereby challenging our own platform potentially weaker points or potential hang ups and being honest about it will increase the likeliness that those weaker spots get cleaned up and sorted out.

It is definitely true society will shift based around a new product. Is VR realistically that type of product? If so then all good. If realistically it is not, how can it be adjusted to be that type of product? Should it even be that type of product? Maybe it will be platform specific but that isn’t a bad thing but a good thing. Or if it is going to be a universal, social shifting platform and other forms of media distribution like screens will be a thing of the past then how realistically is that going to happen? Are we all really going to wear VR glasses and contact lenses. Is that honestly a realistic scenario?

Will take at least 10 years for it to take off globally; And it may very well never get there. A few bunch like Luckey Palmer will get rich like he already did, but that’s all for a long while…

Until we have internet good enough to run the merge of VR to streaming services like what Shinra is building :wink:
For that happen, all you need is give people access to cheap fiber network then headsets will be hundreds of times cheaper to manufacture and the masses will finally buy into the idea.
The hardware as it is now, outside financial elites, it won’t sell at all. The reason why I’ll be a lazy very late adopter of VR development, for me there’s no point in running into that right now.