On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:00:18 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:
On 30/12/2024 18:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Is this second age of VR coming to an end? It's not entirely dead yet,
but it does seem like the excitement over the platform has faded and
--except for platform fanatics-- it just isn't drawing in new users
(or, as importantly, users who keep using the device after the initial
novelty wears off) they way it used to. What new stuff we see seems
largely to be titles that have been in production for years and are
only coming out now; meanwhile, hardware companies seem to be
shuttering their VR device plans and VR game development is slowing
down or being quietly ended entirely.
>
The biggest problem I have with VR is even if they could solve issues
such as wearability and battery consumption I still don't see why I'd
want one unless they were so cheap it was 'nothing' money. So I watched
a review of Apple's Vision Pro and although I thought the technology was
pretty cool I was still left with that feeling of but why do I want one?
If I want to use my MacBook (if I had one that is) I'd prefer to open it
up and actually use it directly instead of virtually. If I want to watch
a film, then that's what I'm doing so why would I be accessing apps at
the same time. If for some reason I really need to do that then I'll use
my iPad. Oh and no I don't fancy getting run over by a car as I didn't
see it coming.
>
I feel a comparison with smart phones can be made. Even before Apple
took the leap of the iPhone I could still look at the concept of a
smartphones and think I can see why I would get one if someone could
just produce the right package of hardware and software. I just don't
get that with VR and as you say it's still feels like a gimmick and not
a cheap one either.
Exactly. 3D. Virtual Assistants. VR. We've been doing them since at least
the 50s in various iterations and they are always a flash in the pan.
Let's just look at the bookends of y2k.
Assitants: There was Newton. There was Clippy. There was *gasp* Microsoft
Bob.
VR: There was the VFX-1 and CyberMaxx HMD*.
3D: There were 3D TVs and Bluray players in the late aughties.
Marketers and clever C-suite managers have been running up this hamburger
hill for 30 years. Somehow, they haven't figured out that no one wants
it, excepting early adopters that chase the next "big thing" because they
want to be trend setters. Marketers can always convince them. But the
rest has always been "3. ???" and never gets to "4. Profit!"
At one time in the 2000s to 2010s, all of my movie theatres had 3D
features playing. After people found out they were getting an effective
12fps and headaches, and paying more for it because the presentation
equipment costs more, it went away. Fast. It's hard to find it outside of
some niche IMAX presentation now.**
The same thing is going to happen with LLM products as conversational
partners.*** People prefer real people and RR (Real Reality). LLMs have a
legit purpose, but it's not companionship and officiousness.
-- ZagThis is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````* Kewpie doll goes to the first person who guesses what "HMD" stood for.
** And even then, I saw Desolation of Smaug in IMAX at 48fps (to deal
with the frame alternation, so an effective 24fps) and it *still* sucked.
An amazing flying dragon, in 3D, at 24 fps on a 22m x 16 m screen still
blurred and failed if you weren't looking right at it. You had to wear
the glasses. No peripheral vision. You had to keep your head still.
Nintendo 3DS. No glasses. Everybody turned that crap off because you'd go
cross-eyed.
They get actual holograms happening, in 60 fps, with a full 90 degree
field of vision from any angle, and maybe that's a thing. (Or maybe you
can't see the protag from where you're sitting because there's a rock in
the way.) But every 3D attempt up to that is made of fail.
*** Can someone please explain to me why Google Gemni has a stereotypical
African-American badass black man voice?