Is it not also AR to have many invisible creatures, gyms, and resources placed in the real world? I don't think there needs to be a visual component at all for it to be AR. When I used to play the game my reality was augmented because everywhere I went I thought "I wonder what Pokemon are around" and would check the app.
A seamless visual integration would be nice (I want to see some Pokemon battle in my living room) but even just the Ingress-style map integration is AR in my opinion.
Seeing as plenty of companies are wanting to cash in on the visual definition of AR, perhaps we need a differentiated term here? If you wanted to highlight the locational aspect, perhaps something like "augmented cartography" but I think the idea goes beyond harnessing position data... it's more generally about annotating reality, in a way.
On the other hand, gyms are just arbitrarily tied to landmarks purely by location. There's no actual interaction with the landmark. Excepting spawn variance, you could replace the entire pokemon map with a fake world and absolutely nothing would change from a gameplay point of view.
In that sense, I struggle to call that AR there's no actual augmentation to the reality. The pokemon, gyms, PoI, etc. do not influence or take influence from the landscape around them. You don't go to actual hospitals to heal your pokemon. Gyms don't change in any way whatsoever based on where they're placed - for example, battling in a gym in the middle of a park doesn't involve fighting in an open field with no obstacles, vs a gym in a CBD letting the buildings, cars, etc. play a role in the battle.
It really boils down to the subjective aspect of what AR/VR/etc. constitutes. For me, there needs to be some influence from the real world to the AR. With PoGo, there's really not beyond the most superficial listed above. In that sense, it's no more AR than an achievement/reward-based, social-network style step counter where you compete with your friends and the public for the amount you walk. It simply uses the GPS to measure distance - beyond that, the real world plays no role.
One major thing would change: the social aspect. There are raids in Pokemon Go and they happen in specific physical locations. You must literally go stand near other humans and cooperate with them to win.
Is that actually a feature of Pokemon Go? I'd heard of this, but what I heard was specifically that it was a myth.
I suspect the old rumours of 'porygon is most likely found near libraries, etc.' is myth, but this definitely holds.
Technically... yes. But that would make any location-tracking application technically "AR" too.
Yelp is an AR application (it's Monocle mode) in much more of a real way tham just slapping stuff on landmarks and using GPS.
Lets face it - "Augmented Reality" to most people means real-time video overlay and enhancement. Maps data isn't reality, it's a representation of it. Real-time video through a devices camera is a reflection of reality so augmenting that is much more towards the spirit of the term.
> "the nascent technology, which blends digital images with a person’s view of the real world."
edit: correct mixed relative to mixed reality. brane fart.
Pokemon Go may not have deeply integrated with reality, but it brought the game "out of the screen".
"Geo-AR" reached an early user awareness peak when foursquare was exciting and it is still very much alive in niches like Strava segments.
But you're not augmenting your senses that perceive the reality. Using the app to check if an entity exists near you is nothing more than just a reference check; it's like looking up Yelp reviews for the restaurant you're in.
Yes, Niantic had success with Ingress amd PoGo but literally everything they ever did they did in the most stupid and brain-dead way.
I would still play Ingress today but after 3 years I am beyond frustrated with that company and lost any drive to invest any more time and energy.
What makes me sad is the fact that Ingress still has so much untapped potential but at the same time I know that Niantic is unable to do anything with that potential.
There are workarounds (everyone have to insert their pokemon at the exact same time), but that's besides the point.
A) Only 5 or 10 minutes, definitely not 30
B) If both/all team members are present in the fight, they all have "claim" to the gym afterwards, and this works. I've tested both cases.
Also, 3D movies only seem to be getting better. Pretty sure it's not a fad at this point.
I haven't heard a lot of people talk about the 3D in Rogue One, but I'm very glad I saw it that way.
- AR powers the world's #1 Photo App (#3 most popular app overall) in Snapchat's filters.
- AR is getting its first commercially polished, OS level set of libraries in the next release from the world's most valuable consumer electronics company in iOS 11.
- AR's killer form factor - wearable glasses - is being furiously developed by Google, Apple, SNAP, MSFT, etc, etc and it's going to be weird and fucking wonderful when AR has a truly suitable foundation to build on.
So where are the hits?
All around us, right in front of us.
Unlikely. I've elaborated on this in the past.
Basically: You cannot make things dark. You can't use LCD type technology to block part of the lenses for the same reason you can't see scratches on your lenses: you're not focused on your lenses! You're focused in the distance. That means the ideal of having crisp, readable text overlays is mostly a fantasy. You can prove this yourself: get a piece of tape, write some text on it, and put it over your lenses. You can't read the text. You can even use clear tape to simulate what a real overlay would look like.
The second problem is power. Oculus makes sense because you're tethered to a high-end workhorse. When you're using glasses, you have neither a video card nor a huge source of power at your disposal. That means battery technology would need to improve by a massive amount just to make the glasses not die within hours.
The third issue is target recognition. The real world is instant. That means any overlay you use would need to attain 90FPS to appear seamless. If you're going to do the most basic thing with an AR device -- drawing an arrow on the ground, indicating where to walk, a'la Google Maps -- you'll need to recognize the ground + render the overlay within 11 milliseconds. This might work for a ground-based overlay, since you can assume it's a flat plane in a big city, as long as your gyroscope is accurate enough. But where would you even stick a gyroscope with that kind of precision inside a glasses form factor?
The best form factor for this would probably be some kind of "bandana", where the meat of the device sits on the back of your head. That'd look dorky and it'd be uncomfortable, but you might be able to pull it off.
The only way this might work is if you use LCD tech to dim the entirety of both lenses enough to then project light on top of them. But again, your focusing out in the distance, so trying to show anything readable (text messages) seems kind of a fantasy.
Here's proof: Pull out your phone and hold it up to your eye where lenses of glasses would normally be. I'm not sure if you could even render it in a way that would account for the focus blur.
As for not making things dark, yes that's true. You can of course tint the glasses or use an extra layer to darken the outside world, or you can really crank the brightness causes the user's iris to contract creating the impression of higher contrast in the dark regions. Best option is to combine the approaches with a camera observing the environment, which can even be done on a per-pixel basis as in the paper I helped write 
As for power/performance, it's all a matter of desired form factor. If you don't mind a cable to an arm or hip attached android device, you can have everything you need right now. Alternatively there's the Hololens style huge headset. But if you want slimline glasses yes you'll be waiting a few years.
A lot a people are bearish on the future of AR and I can appreciate that viewpoint, but the arguments you've brought for it are at best half true and I hope readers don't see this and think any of these problems are unsolvable (or indeed, haven't already been solved)
A better situation is where the preprint or open access version is available.
WHAT?! Does that mean it's the authors who pay publishers to get their work published? Is that really true? And then publishers also charge readers for what they were paid to publish in the first place?
If so then... I don't even... :)
It also fosters discussion, since we can view your work and see whether it stands on its own merits, or whether it's related to the discussion past the title and the abstract.
The IEEE site also shows that your article has been viewed 238 times. My comment linking to the unimprisoned version was upvoted 5 times, and a good rule of thumb is that 4*upvotes = view count on a clickable link. (I've measured this in the past.) So your readership probably increased by at least 10%.
Lastly, I'm hopeful that IEEE and other institutions will eventually yield to the forces of technology, as the RIAA did. Attempting to stop technology by force doesn't have a good track record of success. It will be an unpleasant ride until then, but the world will be better off.
To answer some of the sibling comments:
rspeer > You get no actual benefit from IEEE making money off of your article, right?
I'm well aware, although as an IEEE member I don't think it's fair to say no benefit, although it is very hard to quantify.
klibertp > what difference it makes for you personally, as an author and researcher, whether people access your work via a paywall or not?
None. As said above, I think my tenor wasn't communicated well enough. I was more just surprised that, given that sillysaurus3 and I have never communicated before, someone would take an action that could have potentially been quite upsetting (I know a few researchers where that would have definitely been the case).
klibertp > Does that mean it's the authors who pay publishers to get their work published? Is that really true? And then publishers also charge readers for what they were paid to publish in the first place?
Absolutely not in our field. As I understand it, in some fields there is a charge for very long form writing to cover the work required in reviewing and editing (though perversely the actual person who does that work is often unpaid), but generally pay-to-publish would indicate a low quality journal and would be an outlet of last resort.
Having used the Hololens it actually works quite well. Also in IBMs 17 year old thing https://www.cnet.com/news/computers-off-the-rack-from-ibm/
http://www.mcubemems.com/product/mc7010-9-axis-igyro/ (that's 3mm square). Plenty of space on a pair of glasses for a 9 dof IMU.
11 milliseconds on a modern CPU is a long time for image processing. You need a lot of grunt to do it, but it would work. It makes sense that the glasses should just be a dumb screen with some odometry, connected to a much more powerful data source.
"AR" doesn't mean "projecting clear text onto the real world". It means retransmitting the real world from a camera onto an LCD with things added.
We literally already have the technology built into phones. You add some lenses and a battery pack and you're good.
Magic Leap has hinted that their hardware will be able to do this.
You assume current LCD tech, but there are NEW things being built.
After playing Pokémon Go for a while, I finally realized that the act of playing PMG is like hunting & stalking for deer/elk/whatever, but without needing a weapon, ammo, training, safety gear, or bloodshed.
So after factoring in all the extra exercise, a win for the city girl :-)
I think to replicate PMG's success, the next game has to tickle that same hunter driver. What's the new new thing that people want to hunt and track down? If we identify this, we will have the next winning AR game.
I think they'd have to either add a tracking over time feature or restore the radar that used to exist for me to get back in to it.
: I have to qualify this because the 3DS can do some things with certain prepared cards, and cell phones nowadays outclass the 3DS quite handily. But doing any sort of analysis without such hints, which certainly have not taken off, is way harder. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3ds+augmented+r...
And I found it to work less well in practice than the demos showed. Though working at all is impressive.
Even though, to his point, he's technically correct, it was just a "dumb" overlay. However, part of the excitement of the game was that you could see it in the world (both physically by having to walk around to catch it, and visually via the AR). I'm surprised you didn't see people posting pictures of pokemon in funny locations/situations back when it was really popular
It placed a Minecraft creation into your environment in realtime. Though it seemed mostly like a tech demo without much of a point, it was pretty impressive when I played with it.
So, not really impressed by pokemon go.
Toyota 86 AR
Though you do have to put down a marker to indicate where you want the center of the racetrack to be, so there's not much analysis going on.
However the AR of pokémon go actually makes the game harder IMO, so it's only on in the rare instances I feel the need to take an in-game photo.
Also, pokego is a significant battery drain on my primary device. I feel like leaving the camera on all the time would just kill the battery faster. OTOH I don't really care if the 3d effect kills my 3ds faster. My gaming sessions aren't as mission critical as my phone battery.
Just like with AR functionality on phones, the functionality on the 3DS just didn't turn out to be that useful or interesting for video games.
But since I've never played one for more than 30min I guess I can't speak on that.
I'd love an AR game which gathered your real-life location data but allowed you to do the actual playing when you're back at home.
Game changing apps like the one above (at least it is to me) are coming to the iPhone 8. Thanks in part to Apple's AR Kit and ingenious developers.
original video: Super Mario Bros Recreated as Life Size Augmented Reality Game
But, I mean, a year from now? Maybe if adoption doesn't pick up by then let's ask the same question and see what conclusions we can draw.
AR can be used practically anywhere, by almost anyone, on a consumer-level phone. VR, by contrast, requires a fixed space, a certain amount of physical wellness, and expensive equipment.
We're not using the camera for AR at all though. It's only AR because where you are in the real world determines what you can interact with in the game.
1) It has a window to the AR larger than a wallet
2) It doesn't hog one of my hands for holding said window into the AR
3) Actually takes into consideration the the environment it's supposed to augment
Decent AR technology will probably be branched from current VR technologies, rather than mobile phones.
Or if you want to focus on Warcraft as the big hit that popularized the genre, then we can see that the secondary MMOs of today are over 10x size of the biggest MMO pre-Warcraft (Everquest peaked at around 600k subscriber, Elder Scrolls Online has over 8 million). No one game has been as big as WoW, but it did grow the overall market massively.