
Taking Virtual Reality for a Test Drive - pepys
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/taking-virtual-reality-for-a-test-drive
======
canada_dry
I have a couple VR headsets and, like someone on reddit recently observed,
they sit mostly gathering dust - but, when I do put one on, I will use it for
hours. Most times it's such a totally immersive experience that I'm usually
shocked to discover that I'm actually at home when I take off the helmet.

IMHO VR (and AR) has moved on from being at a high risk of dying as an
overhyped fad (e.g. 3D TV) to having enough niche utility that its uses will
grow as people get exposed to it.

Using VR is a fun regular diversion at the moment, but not a highly useful
tool - but I'm hopeful that will change. I would love to be able to _easily_
use a VR helmet in conjunction with a keyboard/mouse/hands vs. holding
controllers to do more intensive computer tasks like programming.

~~~
wlesieutre
For what it's worth, gathering dust isn't universal. Pretty much every day
mine gets fired up for half an hour of Pistol Whip or Beat Saber.

Other games get longer sessions, like Shadow Point which I just started
yesterday. Neat game so far, puzzles based on perspective, light/shadow,
mirrors/reflections, that kind of thing. It reminds me of The Witness in a lot
of ways.

Also has some unusual spaces where rooms connect to each other or back to
themselves in a ways that they shouldn't. Nothing new about that in games, but
it's weirder to experience in VR than on a computer screen.

My favorite trick so far has been where they'll make you lean in close to
something, and then when you step back you find yourself in a totally
different space. Nothing changes on screen, they just pull the whole
environment out from under you while it's outside your field of view, leaving
only the part you'd been looking at unchanged.

Narration by Patrick Stewart is also great.

A friend was telling me last week that a 3D space strategy game is what he was
hoping to see in VR before he jumps on board. Then last night I stumbled on
Eternal Starlight, which will be right up his alley:
[https://twitter.com/e_starlight_vr/status/121164647988401766...](https://twitter.com/e_starlight_vr/status/1211646479884017664)

It's still early days, but I think VR has a lot of room for different kinds of
experiences for all sorts of demographics. Very excited to see what we can do
with it in the next couple of years.

------
kfarr
Agree with all of the comments here which can be basically boiled down to: the
hardware, especially the Quest, is great and "ready" for prime time. However
the software is not. Yes, agreed 100%. As a hobbyist web vr developer I'd say
one of the most difficult (and also exciting) things about the industry is
that there are very few agreed upon conventions. As a developer you are faced
with recreating the wheel for each and every experience. Imagine if as a web
developer you had to literally recreate pixel for pixel a web form, checkbox,
etc. and all its behavior. It would take forever to just get a basic
application working. That's where VR is at. It's coming, just slowly.

------
japhyr
We just got our 8yo son a Nintendo Labo kit to go with his Switch. I was
skeptical about it, because anything with VR or AI or ML in the promotional
material has the potential to be mostly hype. But I was amazed watching him
build and use the kits.

If you're not familiar with it, the Labo is a series of cardboard devices that
you build, which hold your switch and controllers and turn them into a VR
setup. For example, you build a blaster and play a VR game where you shoot
aliens from a few different virtual worlds. Or you build a bird with wings
that flap, and then you fly around with other birds looking for eggs to hatch.
Along with that, you build a foot pedal that makes you fly faster, which also
fans you so you feel more air rushing by your face as you fly faster.

The first time I tried it, I spent about 5 minutes shooting at aliens all
around me. I was laughing and jumping when the boss alien leaped into the air
and came down over my head. When I took the headset away from my face, I was
amazed to find myself back in my own house.

It's amazing to me that people at Nintendo built a VR kit around a device
that, as far as I know, was never intended to be a VR device. It's been really
satisfying watching our son build his own setups, rather than just using a
manufactured plastic device. He's having so much fun with it, and he's
learning so much from it as well. He sees what the screen looks like in VR
mode when it's out of the VR kit, which has led to interesting conversations
around concepts like raytracing.

If you're not ready to jump into an Oculus setup and you already have a switch
around, I highly recommend trying out one of the Labo kits.

~~~
shafyy
While the Labo is great, we should avoid describing it as VR. The same is true
for Google Cardboard.

The experience in a "true" VR headset that offers 6 DoF and hands, such as the
Oculus Quest, is just something completely different.

~~~
soulofmischief
I could make the same argument that lack of eye tracking, native speech
inference, better locomotion strategies, and higher resolution mean that
today's cutting-edge VR headsets will be subject to the same misplaced
scrutiny that you're currently giving the cheap, commoditized headsets. It's
still Virtual Reality.

~~~
jdietrich
_> It's still Virtual Reality._

It really isn't. 6DoF with hand presence is profoundly, fundamentally
different to 3DoF. It's the difference between someone taking off the headset
after a brief demo and saying "that was cool" versus someone taking off the
headset and needing a moment to recalibrate their sense of reality. 3DoF is a
panoramic monitor, 6DoF is _being there_.

~~~
soulofmischief
It's just a better version of Virtual Reality. You don't get to redefine the
term we've been using since the 80's.

I have an Oculus Rift, I am aware how much better 6DoF is, you don't have to
tell me. That doesn't mean 6DoF is a requirement of VR.

One day people like you will be saying that VR without eye-tracking and modern
locomotion isn't really VR, because it's not as immersive.

------
wildermuthn
VR hardware, with the wireless Quest and its eventual successors, is ready for
the mainstream.

VR software is not.

What drives an industry is value, whether business or recreational. While VR
software has typically focused on entertainment value (and there is a lot
there), business-driven VR software hasn’t received as much attention as it
deserves. But thus far no killer-app of VR has been made. There is no excel,
no word, no browser. But there could be, if more people thought about and
identified what VR hardware can do that no other platform can. Moreover, its
value needs to be a 10x moment. Minor improvements will not cause mass
adoption.

So what can VR provide that other platforms can’t?

1) 3D Space

This is the first thing people think of, but is the least important. There are
few business tasks that can’t be done on a 2D plane, and the value of going 3D
(such as in industrial design) is not a 10x improvement over real-life
prototyping.

2) Unlimited space

This also provides less value than it seems. A human can only be in one place,
and our vision can only encompass so much area. There is a low upper-bound on
how much space a human being can use.

3) Presence

The feeling of “being there” is something VR does 10x better than other
platforms. This has been leveraged by entertainment software to good effect.
However, the nature of recreational user experience — gameplay experience —
doesn’t hinge upon presence in a location. VR games can induce strong presence
while still not providing value with strong gameplay experience.

4) Social Presence

This is where VR hardware has the greatest possible leverage and impact. When
you play poker in VR, you see this most clearly — people spend more time
interacting with one another than actually playing poker. Even with cartoonish
avatars, the feeling of being in the presence of another person is practically
the same as being in the same room with them. There is large room for growth
in improving social presence, but even the early state of VR software is 10x
better than what exists elsewhere.

If there is to be a killer business app for VR, it will be akin to excel. But
instead of transforming numbers and formulas, it will transform communication
and relationships. Whatever replaces Facebook, video chat, JIRA, Reddit,
Tinder, or even email will be done on VR/AR.

The gold is there waiting to be picked up. It’s just up to some great company
to do it.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
Regarding points 2 and 3, I have the opposite impression. You can't actually
walk anywhere larger then your room and you can't touch anything. If you lean
in to get a closer look, you can't focus on the thing close to your face (and
it'll be low res). You're right that clever software might fix some of this
(better ways to "walk"), but hardware has a ways to go to get higher
resolution, a focal distance that isn't a constant couple yards away, and
tactile feedback. And solving the last mile of comfort and nausea.

~~~
yeetard
True. I feel like all the inconvenience that comes with VR would be
justifiable, if it could actually create true immersion. But it can't and
never will. Basic problems of VR aren't solvable. Just to fix motion sickness
once and for all, there would have to be a device that fucks with the
vestibular system or something that moves the player in the real world at
close the velocity that the player is moving in the virtual world (Like a
giant crane or something).I really can only see VR working as like a public
thing where you go with friends in your free time similar to a cinema. Maybe
"VR cafes" could be a thing in the future, like those gaming cafes are in
south Korea. For home consumers VR-gaming will always stay just a fun addition
to regular gaming, as they will never be able to afford the hardware that can
make a VR experience not suck. I think it would be a huge success already if
studios would make there regular games naively playable in VR. I think it says
a lot about VR software that beat sabers is still the most popular VR game
although it does not even try to use the full potential that VR truly has.
Could as well be a mediocre Wii game.

------
Causality1
My issue with VR has always been UX. I purchased an Oculus Touch a couple of
years ago. When it works and I'm in-game it's utterly transporting. Truly a
next-gen feeling. Everything else about it is an absolute nightmare. The
software insists the headset is working fine while the headset is blank and
displays an amber warning light. It requires you to have a computer monitor
facing your VR area, which for me involves twisting my desktop screen
completely around backwards. The slightest vibration throws the tracking
cameras off forcing me to set up the entire play area again. Game downloads
refuse to start for unknown reasons. Games designed for use with a traditional
gamepad won't work with the Touch controllers and my gamepad won't work unless
I pull the batteries from my Touch controllers and unpair them from my Rift.
Oh, and my new glasses don't fit in the headset and they don't sell wider
adapters.

VR is the future but its present will make you want to beat its developers
with a tire iron.

~~~
wlesieutre
Give the Quest a shot. No setup besides putting it on your head and tracing
out the guardian area.

Controller tracking is nearly flawless, with some limitations like not being
able to hold a controller behind your back or hidden behind your other arm,
but I don't run into those limits in practice.

Probably won't help your glasses though. That's one of the Quest's bigger
design oversights IMO, that wearing glasses can scratch the headset lenses
even with the glasses spacer installed. There are 3d printed lens rim bumpers
that will keep glasses from touching the headset lenses, but if your glasses
don't physically fit that just trades smushing them into the headset lenses
for smushing them into your face.

~~~
mdre
Buy some VR Lens protectors. I got some for my vive, there were some special
dedicated ones but I just got a pair of smart watch protectors that were
recommended on Reddit.

~~~
wlesieutre
I printed a set of the bumpers, I think they're protective enough for me while
not having any impact on the optical quality like a stick-on protector would

------
jotm
I only have an Oculus Go, which I decided to get as a test drive.

It's... fun, but the graphics quality is lacking. Some people say they stop
noticing the screen door effect, but I never do. Plus I do notice the limited
FOV.

Watching movies in a virtual theater is pretty bad, and I can't even smile or
laugh because then everything goes out of focus, or have a snack, obviously.

I did _love_ the various travel videos on Oculus Video, 360 VR makes it a
whole new experience.

If there were any VR MMO's I'd try them (Zenith had some hype a while ago).

It's a real pain, but you can use the Go + a PS4/Xbox controller to play games
on a big screen, and indeed it's a nice experience even if it's not VR/3D.

Still prefer a projector for anything 2D.

~~~
Phillips126
I was intrigued by VR so I picked up the Oculus Go. It was interesting, but
felt lacking. I wasn't disappointed but the whole experience felt pretty meh.

For Christmas I thought I'd test the upgrade and purchased an Oculus Quest.
Wow, this thing blew me away. The experience is night and day different, so
much so that I stuck my Go in the closet and may be selling it down the road.
Having two controllers, hand tracking, Oculus Link if you have a gaming PC,
overall improvements to display and battery, and of course 6 DOF. I've never
been more excited about VR.

The Quest really is an incredible unit. I've so far been able to:

    
    
      - Play "native" Quest games which have been very fun
    
      - Play PCVR (SteamVR) games using ALVR[0] over 
        5ghz WiFi with great performance
    
      - Sideloaded RetroArch[1] to play N64, SNES, Gameboy 
        and GameCube games with a bluetooth controller
    
      - Watching full length movies in a cinema-like experience
    
      - Enjoying many 360 videos on YouTube
    

I'm contemplating doing some game development in VR again. I tried to build
some applications on my Go but the single controller and weak specs really
hindered my creativity.

I implore you to test out the Quest if you found the Go experience lacking as
I did, it's really more than a minor upgrade.

[0]
[https://github.com/polygraphene/ALVR](https://github.com/polygraphene/ALVR)
[1] [https://www.retroarch.com/](https://www.retroarch.com/)

~~~
alasdair_
How does oculus link on the quest compare to the latest-gen rift? Is there any
reason to buy the rift any more?

~~~
saberdancer
Depends on the person. Some people say it is the same, some people feel that
the Rift is still ahead. I do not own the Rift S or Rift so I cannot make
grounded comparison but I can lay out some details:

1\. Rift S has less screen door effect as it uses a different (better) pixel
arrangement, however it has worse colors and cannot show true blacks like
Quest can (OLED panel inside)

2\. Rift S has a 5th camera for inside tracking which can/does help increase
tracking range. That being said, I'd say Quest works really well and I do not
feel the need for 5th camera.

3\. Rift S is much more comfortable, if you get a Quest you can solve the
comfort by putting a counterweight on the end of the strap, the change in
comfort is incredible.

4\. Some people report that they can feel a slight latency when using Link
with Quest (some don't feel it)

5\. Rift S has a slightly better refresh rate (80Hz vs 72Hz)

6\. Quest has beta for hand tracking (using your real life hands in VR without
a controller), it works decently and will open up new kind of experiences.
Rift S apparently won't get this feature to keep compatability with Rift.

7\. It looks like Oculus is focusing on Quest for the future, I wouldn't be
surprised if their main headset in the future is "Quest" like rather than Rift
like.

8\. Quest can be used untethered. This is for me the killer feature for VR and
when you start using it, it really makes a big difference. One caveat is that
I do not have a "pulley" system so when I am tethered, the cable is always
around and intrusive. You can even use Quest untethered for PCVR content by
using a 5Ghz network and Virtual Desktop or ALVR (probably officially via Link
in the future)

9\. Quest with using Link is more performance intensive as it needs to encode
the image and send it over the wire to the headset, Rift on the other hand
just passes the image via cable to the display in the headset.

All of this being said, I'd say that for the vast majority of users, Oculus
Quest is the headset to get. It allows you so much flexibility and capability
that it is hard to advise against it. Lot of people think that being
standalone is not a big thing for them, but when they get the Quest they
realize they can use the Quest in the living room, on the porch, take it with
them when they travel or as a party tool.

~~~
Phillips126
You nailed it on the head. The Quest is a nearly "do it all" VR device. Do you
want a mobile VR experience to enjoy with friends on the go (streaming to a
TV/Phone)? Check. Do you want to experience the high quality (graphics) of a
high end VR experience, you can do that too (both wired and wirelessly)! Aside
from the refresh rate which I personally have no issues with, I can't see any
reason to purchase a wired PCVR-only headset.

And just to comment on the Oculus Quests SDE (screen door effect), this has
been greatly been improved. I honestly do not even notice this at all like I
did with the Oculus Go.

~~~
saberdancer
If you have only one headset, I'd go for a Quest. If you are experienced VR
user, owned a headset previously then you probably know the type of
experiences you'll use. In that case it might be better to go for something
else, but I'd still say that Quest is the best bang for the buck right now,
and potentially will improve even further with advances in finger tracking and
potential wireless Link.

------
shafyy
Great to see VR more frequently on the first page here.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/ud1fF](http://archive.md/ud1fF)

------
buboard
with prices of huge tv screens dropping , what about 3d projection rooms like
this? [https://prodisplay.com/wp-content/uploads/cave-projection-
sc...](https://prodisplay.com/wp-content/uploads/cave-projection-
screens-600x400.jpg)

~~~
criddell
That's the tech that I want to see grow. I have no interest in wearing a
headset for long periods of time but a holodeck-like room would be amazing.

~~~
saberdancer
You don't get 3d with that kind of setup. It can work for seated experiences
like driving or flying sims but for any kind of game where you interact with
the environment it doesn't work.

Holodeck is effectively VR, not walls with projections on them.

~~~
criddell
Right. I'm saying I want to see that tech developed.

There used to be ad kiosks in grocery stores that had a 3d display without
glasses. This was about 10 years ago and I don't really know how it worked
(holograms maybe?). Make an entire room out of that stuff.

~~~
saberdancer
How can you drive adoption with that kind of setup. Most people do not have a
spare room just for some kind of 3D setup, even if you could develop a
technology to turn your walls into 3D images, you still cannot interact with
the environment as you cannot project the image in the "air". You cannot grab
things or turn things around as you can in VR. Given that your perspective
should change depending on your head positioning, this kind of system should
reproject everything as you move your head (even turning of your head should
affect it).

There are a lot of issues with this kind of tech, at least for the mass
market. For niche uses like driving simulators it can work, and I am sure with
enough cash you could set it up.

Even VR has issues, data collected by SteamVR and Oculus shows that most
people have very small playspaces, this means that roomscale experiences are
much harder to pull off. Right now, the main problem is barriers to adoption,
having a headset that you can just put on your head like you turn on your
gaming console, that is what is needed. Needing to take 5 minutes to start
everything up, or half an hour to setup your tracking cameras is not
acceptable for average consumer. Oculus Quest works great in this department
and is the way VR will go forward.

~~~
criddell
Frankly, I don't think the AR/VR market is going to get much bigger than it is
right now. For consumers, adoption might go up by a factor 2, but probably not
a factor of 10 with a few exceptions. For example, I think HUD systems in cars
will use a lot more AR ideas.

There are a lot more opportunities in the commercial space.

~~~
saberdancer
I really feel that VR headset could replace game consoles. Quest is pretty
much a game console in a headset. When technology improves, it could become
good enough for most gamers just like aging technology of Xbox and PlayStation
is. This alone could push adoption by a factor of 10 or even more.

~~~
criddell
They should follow the console model.

I think Facebook missed a big opportunity with the Quest. It should be $100
and have an app store where Facebook makes 30% on the software.

~~~
Impossible
Uh, what opportunity did Facebook miss? This is exactly what they're doing
with the Quest. Yes, Quest isn't $100, but at $400 for full entry it is by far
the cheapest 6DOF VR solution on the market. It is already sold at a loss, and
its hard for 30% of app store sales to justify a $500-$900 (guessing) loss per
unit at $100. Even with the most privacy destroying datamining and advertising
I don't think Facebook could justify taking that big of a loss on the
hardware. As components get cheaper Quest will price drop. This is one of the
problems with VR market adoption. People essentially want cutting edge
hardware, for nearly free, games for free, and don't want to be monetized in
any other way, to the point that people complain about how evil Facebook is
when they suggest you link a Facebook account to your Quest.

