Though Apple's expensive headset was been praised for its cutting-edge technology, the device is expensive and hasn't yet been widely embraced at either home or work.
Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It’s the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.
Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn’t take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.
3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn’t take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.
3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn’t really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.
3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don’t like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
there is a big difference between those 3d effects and actual vr, where with one you only get the primitive depth idea your brain produces versus actually being able to inspect something from any angle
it also enables very different inputs, like with beat saber or rumble for example, or recently I was imagining a game where you can point at something to grapple on to it while using the other controller to shoot at enemies at the same time which wouldn’t really work without vr
unfortunately for me i’m someone who is interested in computer graphics and the difference in immersion from vr is largely offset by the graphics being worse, the screens looking worse and blurrier, the lack of an actual focus depth (I forget what the technical term for this is but most headsets have everything set so your eyes always focus at what would normally by 1-2 meters away), and the new perspective exposing all of the little graphics tricks that don’t really work when you can see them in this level of detail
(i’d say an ideal headset would probably have 6x more pixels than my reverb g2 (/3.5 px because it would also have foveated rendering) and be able to render visuals similar to cyberpunk at ‘rt ultra’, with apparently already gets 90 fps on a 4090 at 1080p, so that would be 7.5x more pixels, you would need a card 7.5x faster than a 4090, so assuming Moore’s Law stays accurate that should be around 12 years from now)
so why hasn’t vr taken off? I would say (in no particular order) it’s because it hurts your eyes, makes you dizzy, is uncomfortable, its expensive, it doesn’t have many apps, the controls feel janky for actual ui stuff where a mouse and keyboard is just easier, people are lazy and it requires some physical activity, people don’t have all that much free time
don’t take this the wrong way, I generally love VR and have probably 150-200 hrs in it over two years (a lot less than a some people, if you look at the reviews for vr chat for example its not uncommon for people to have >5k hours)
Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
This is spot on IMO, the technologies are now good enough at producing realistic 3D experiences even interactive, that if there were no inconveniences I’d bet it would be about as popular as color was when that became reality.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don’t like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce.
Bingo. I often used the 3D on the 3DS, but that’s because I didn’t have to do anything other than not move the device around too much. So it worked for gaming at home, not on/in a vehicle.
Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It’s the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.
Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn’t take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.
3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn’t take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.
3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn’t really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.
3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don’t like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
there is a big difference between those 3d effects and actual vr, where with one you only get the primitive depth idea your brain produces versus actually being able to inspect something from any angle
it also enables very different inputs, like with beat saber or rumble for example, or recently I was imagining a game where you can point at something to grapple on to it while using the other controller to shoot at enemies at the same time which wouldn’t really work without vr
unfortunately for me i’m someone who is interested in computer graphics and the difference in immersion from vr is largely offset by the graphics being worse, the screens looking worse and blurrier, the lack of an actual focus depth (I forget what the technical term for this is but most headsets have everything set so your eyes always focus at what would normally by 1-2 meters away), and the new perspective exposing all of the little graphics tricks that don’t really work when you can see them in this level of detail
(i’d say an ideal headset would probably have 6x more pixels than my reverb g2 (/3.5 px because it would also have foveated rendering) and be able to render visuals similar to cyberpunk at ‘rt ultra’, with apparently already gets 90 fps on a 4090 at 1080p, so that would be 7.5x more pixels, you would need a card 7.5x faster than a 4090, so assuming Moore’s Law stays accurate that should be around 12 years from now)
so why hasn’t vr taken off? I would say (in no particular order) it’s because it hurts your eyes, makes you dizzy, is uncomfortable, its expensive, it doesn’t have many apps, the controls feel janky for actual ui stuff where a mouse and keyboard is just easier, people are lazy and it requires some physical activity, people don’t have all that much free time
don’t take this the wrong way, I generally love VR and have probably 150-200 hrs in it over two years (a lot less than a some people, if you look at the reviews for vr chat for example its not uncommon for people to have >5k hours)
This is spot on IMO, the technologies are now good enough at producing realistic 3D experiences even interactive, that if there were no inconveniences I’d bet it would be about as popular as color was when that became reality.
Bingo. I often used the 3D on the 3DS, but that’s because I didn’t have to do anything other than not move the device around too much. So it worked for gaming at home, not on/in a vehicle.