Re: VR still on the rise?

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 12:46:43 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 06/02/2025 09:56, Anssi Saari wrote:

JAB <noway@nochance.com> writes:
 

Is that seriously put forward as something that people are going to
go, sign me up and take my money?

 
No. I can see AR or VR use might happen in professional contexts, like
having assembly or disassembly instructions right there in your field of
view for whatever thingamajig and the ability to document your progress
automagically. I understand this sort of thing is done by phones today.
 
Or the idea of guiding a doctor or nurse to the right emergency room in
a big hospital? Might work. In fact I remember this sort of thing was
proposed and maybe even prototyped with Google Glass way back when.
 

>
I tend to agree, I can see the use of it in professional contexts such
as say helping to train surgeons before they get to try out their handy
work on a real person.
>
For non-commercial use, I really don't see that killer app that would
make me think that's something I want.

I think the biggest problems of VR have been

a) Price:
   The devices need to be cheaper. They're still seen as too
   much of a gimmick and people don't want to invest $600 in
   something that they won't use for more than a few hours. Of
   course, this isn't entirely up to the developers --there's
   only so much you can do to reduce cost-- but I think VR
   would have seen a much bigger uptake had the headsets cost
   $150 instead of four times (or more) of that price.

b) Capability
   This is sort of a catch-all, but VR isn't really solving
   an existing problem, and brings in a host of new issues.
   Whether its compatibility with people's wonky eyesight, or
   comfort (or the isolation of being cut-off from the real world,
   or wonky controls, or motion sickness, or...) there's just too
   many issues that come with using VR. I think there's a great
   desire for VR to be popular -people WANT to be immersed in
   their games!- but the disadvantages of the current crop of
   headsets outweighs many of its advantages, and those
   advantages aren't really necessary to games anyway when you
   can get almost as immersed in a game using a regular old
   monitor.

c) Siloization:
   The fact that too many of the headset manufacturers are
   hoping to use their VR solution to drive users to their market-
   place is a real problem. It makes people even more wary of
   buying the things. You don't want to invest in a VR headset
   only to find that the games you're actually interested are
   coming out on another platform. (Yes, you can --sometimes,
   with a great deal of effort-- get the hardware to work on
   other marketplaces, but its not something most people are
   going to bother with). Were there a common recognized standard
   that all VR headsets could use --and that developers could
   target-- I think VR would have been more popular. But right
   now --for both developers and end-users--  it's a guessing
   game as to which headset will bring the most value-for-dollar,
   and given all the other issues, most people just decide to
   opt out entirely.


If ONE of those three categories could have been solved -- good
quality VR for cheap, or no siloization, or fixing all the problems VR
brings with it-- I think the other two would have been forgivable and
VR would have become a lot more popular than it ultimately was. But
having to drop $600 on a headset that may not work with your games and
is a pain to use besides? It's no surprise VR has remained as niche as
it has.


(That said, I think that it will soon be possible to start selling
GOOD VR headsets* for <$100 USD sooner than later, so VR isn't
necessarily dead yet.







* as opposed to the cheap gimcrack 'use your cellphones' in a
cardboard sleeve they have now