Why the Virtual-Reality Hype is About to Come Crashing Down

[andybird123]

The whole conversation in this thread has been about the longer term viability of VR to go mainstream and all of your comments have been negative, saying it cant. Now your saying it just needs more advancements and more content, which is exactly what Ive been pointing out all along. Particularly as its been shown that the advancements are coming at a greater pace than you'd assumed.

And then at the same time you are trying to bring projectors in to the argument as being superior to TV's, yet the entire mainstream market completely disagrees with you.

It seems like you have no idea what the mainstream market thinks.

 

[Rroff]

720p does look bad at 85" to 100" well bad might be to strong a word as its watchable but you really need 1080p content at those large screen sizes to maintain a sharp image. I stopped buying DVD because of the size problem. Still projectors are not a fixed size you can always shrink it down to a small 50" screen or what ever you need. Personally I just leave mine at 100" sometimes sitting in the middle of the living room, sometimes at the back.

Doesn't look bad at 85" at the normal distance you'd view that kind of size display, 100" it starts to become a little more noticeable at the distances you'd normally find in the average home setting. I got rid of my 1080p projector years back when I just wasn't getting value from it (at the time they cost car kind of money) - at the time even most blurays were poorly mastered and more like 800 pixels worth of vertical resolution and now I mostly stream from "HD" online which rarely justifies higher resolution.

I don't find a projector that impractical - these days I can fully control my media setup from my phone and it takes up practically no space.

 

[andybird123]

I don't find a projector that impractical - these days I can fully control my media setup from my phone and it takes up practically no space.

And thats fine, I'm not arguing that you shouldnt have a projector, I'm only pointing out that in terms of whether or not VR will go mainstream, saying projectors are better than TV's is a bizare statement to make given that in all the years that projectors have been available the market has never come to that conclusion. I for one would much rather have a 60-70" 4k TV than a 100" 1080p projector. I'm not even saying VR will replace either.

VR is in its first couple of years of having existed as a consumer device, its too soon to write it off and pottseys biggest complaint seems to be resolution, when we have 4k displays being demoed now, but pottssy seems to think its going to be 5 years before they make it in to devices

In the last few years weve gone from 1080p phones to 1440 and now even have 4k in phones, but anythijg beyond 4k is going to take more than 10 years? Really?

 

[Pottsey]

“It seems like you have no idea what the mainstream market thinks.”

Well you are wrong I have a very good track record for what upcoming technology goes mainstream. Time will tell but I think it is you who seems to have an inflated idea of how mainstream VR is going to go.

Yes this conversion is about VR going mainstream. Just because I don’t think VR will go mainstream in 5 years, it doesn’t mean I have written VR off or think it’s going fail and disappear. I can see VR as a niche product like motion controllers or Kinetic style motion systems well perhaps a little better then them but still niche. The reasons you gave are not enough for VR to go full mainstream.

I never said I am writing VR off and even after VR hardware and software get good enough and the prices fall I am not convinced VR is going to become this giant mainstream market in the billions. At the moment VR is looking to be more of a niche product. It might change in the long term but not the next 5 years.

“its too soon to write it off and pottseys biggest complaint seems to be resolution, when we have 4k displays being demoed now, but pottssy seems to think its going to be 5 years before they make it in to devices”

I never said it would take 5 years for 4k displays to make it into VR. I said I don’t think VR displays will be good enough for over 5 years until about gen 3. You seem to be misreading and making false assumptions about a lot of what I write.

As for projectors the reason I mentioned projectors is you gave some incorrect facts on them and you said VR as a cheap alternate to 100” screens will help VR taking off. If cheap projectors don’t go mainstream for 100” screens then I don’t see VR benefiting much from that.

 

[Rroff]

And thats fine, I'm not arguing that you shouldnt have a projector, I'm only pointing out that in terms of whether or not VR will go mainstream, saying projectors are better than TV's is a bizare statement to make given that in all the years that projectors have been available the market has never come to that conclusion. I for one would much rather have a 60-70" 4k TV than a 100" 1080p projector. I'm not even saying VR will replace either.

VR is in its first couple of years of having existed as a consumer device, its too soon to write it off and pottseys biggest complaint seems to be resolution, when we have 4k displays being demoed now, but pottssy seems to think its going to be 5 years before they make it in to devices

In the last few years weve gone from 1080p phones to 1440 and now even have 4k in phones, but anythijg beyond 4k is going to take more than 10 years? Really?

None of my posts have made any reference to whether a TV or projector is better but your experience (referencing price and performance, etc.) of projectors seems to be a generation behind the reality - you might (or might not) change your mind using a more recent setup.

I'm not personally writing off VR but I do strongly believe that many of the fans are hopelessly over optimistic about its capability to go mainstream some are so blown away by where it does work that they seem completely unable to see how impractical some small but relatively important aspects really are and realistically we are many years (at the current rate of development/attention paid to those aspects) from where those things will be as fluid and practical as required for the immersion of a VR experience.

 

[andybird123]

My most recent experience was 6 months ago.

I know you're not writing off VR, i was referencing pottsey's posts writing off VR while at the same time promoting projectors. It doesnt seem to gel with what is going on in the market.

He now seems to be saying he has a great track record predicting what will go mainstrem, but this is the guy thats been predicting PowerVR will make a return to desktop graphics for the last however many years.

 

[andybird123]

My most recent experience was 6 months ago.

I know you're not writing off VR, i was referencing pottsey's posts writing off VR while at the same time promoting projectors. It doesnt seem to gel with what is going on in the market. Youve also not tried to claim that projectors are better than TV's.

P, I never mentioned 100" screens or projectors, i said displays as in TV's, seeing as how TV's are the things people actually buy. But neither are mainstream, they are niche. You probably can get an old low res TV for quite a bit cheaper than a brand new 4k TV, but equally comparing the price of a low end 1080 projector to the price of a new 4k TV is also not particularly relevant. If I'm looking at buying a 4k TV and considering a projector as an alternative I am probably going to look at the price of a 4k projector as a like for like (I am in the market for either but a £3k TV beats out a £4-5k projector as the projector doesnt even support HDR)

You also said "the foreseeable future", not 5 years. I specifically said that my timeframe for "mainstream" could be as much as 10 years. But in terms of your biggest complaint on resolution, i think we will be at 4k within 2-3 years and possibly something beyond in 5-6 years. Within 10 years I wouldnt be surprised if we had lightfield displays.

I would say less people have space for a 100" display of any kind, than have somewhere with sitting/standing room for VR.

 

[Sayso]

Its only going to take off when you no longer need a PC, everyone i have shown the Gear VR to have been totally amazed, none of them would by a PC to buy its big brother but a couple of them are thinking of converting away from Apple to Samsung to get the experience.
I think VR is here to stay just not in its current wired form.

 

[Pottsey]

“i was referencing pottsey's posts writing off VR while at the same time promoting projectors. It doesnt seem to gel with what is going on in the market.”

Writing off to me means failed, gone off the shelf, no more production, write it off the books. When did I ever say that about VR?

My projector comments was a counter point to what you said about 100” screens and VR. You seem to be very outdated on projectors with are going from growth to growth but are still a niche product as home products. Projectors are very much going the same direction as VR looks to be going. It wouldn’t surprise me to find VR growing in the same way projectors have over the past few years. But both will remain niche products at least from the point of view of owning them at home. Projectors are mainstream in that the majority of people have used them but are not mainstream in peoples homes. VR I don't see going mainstream in that most people have used them in 10 years.

“He now seems to be saying he has a great track record predicting what will go mainstrem, but this is the guy thats been predicting PowerVR will make a return to desktop graphics for the last however many years.!”

That’s wrong on two counts. A) PowerVR did return to the desktop market in graphics design and B) I never said PowerVR would return. What I said was its very unlikely PowerVR will return to the desktop gaming market as there is no one left to license PowerVR for desktop gaming products. So far that has been correct and on track.

“ I never mentioned 100" screens or projectors, i said displays as in TV's”

You didn’t say TV’s you said displays which can be read as 100” projector displays which is far more common than 100” TV displays. Anyway it doesn’t matter if you mean TV’s or projector my counter point stills stands. I don’t see how VR helms how are going do any better for a replacement of 100” TV’s then projectors.

“You also said "the foreseeable future", not 5 years. I specifically said that my timeframe for "mainstream" could be as much as 10 years.”

In the technology world 5 to 10 years is the foreseeable future. The technology company’s I visit often talk about 5 to 10 years and past that is not foreseeable. Anyway I am still not convinced even by generation 4 VR in around 10 years will be mainstream, perhaps in the low millions of units a year perhaps at a push 10million but not mainstream.

 

[andybird123]

You're all over the place. First you said VR isnt going to solve any problems with the foreseeable, then you said you meant 5 years, now you are saying 10.

Its pretty difficult to have a conversation with someone who keeps moving the goal posts and cant seem to actually make up their mind on what they dont like.

I also never said that VR would replace 100" screens, of any type. I said VR could well be an option for people who DON'T want/have space/funds for a 100" display. It doesnt even matter if you want to include projectors in that, despite the fact it wasnt what I was referring to.

If we are on 8K VR in 10 years time (or an alternative display method that isnt couched in terms of resolution), then it becomes an option for more people who simply can't or won't buy a 100" TV or projector. Saying "people dont have space for VR" looks nonsensical when pushing projectors as being "superior to TV". And that is before even considering the entertainment advantages the VR offers over a flat screen.

 

[Pottsey]

You're all over the place. First you said VR isnt going to solve any problems with the foreseeable, then you said you meant 5 years, now you are saying 10.

Its pretty difficult to have a conversation with someone who keeps moving the goal posts and cant seem to actually make up their mind on what they dont like.

I also never said that VR would replace 100" screens, of any type. I said VR could well be an option for people who DON'T want/have space/funds for a 100" display. It doesnt even matter if you want to include projectors in that, despite the fact it wasnt what I was referring to.

If we are on 8K VR in 10 years time (or an alternative display method that isnt couched in terms of resolution), then it becomes an option for more people who simply can't or won't buy a 100" TV or projector. Saying "people dont have space for VR" looks nonsensical when pushing projectors as being "superior to TV". And that is before even considering the entertainment advantages the VR offers over a flat screen.

I am not all over the place; you seem to be getting very confused. You have time and time again misunderstood what I said. Yet again you are coming up with things I never said. I never once said “VR isnt going to solve any problems with the foreseeable,” just like I never said VR is a write off and I never said PowerVR are coming back to the desktop market. I also never said anything like “then you said you meant 5 years, now you are saying 10.”

I cannot tell if you are making stuff up or just somehow massively misreading most of what I write.

Go back and re read what I said. Which was for the foreseeable future VR will be a small subset of gaming. I then later on defined my view of foreseeable future to mean between 5 to 10 years. The screen problem I defined as being fixable in 5+ years. Generation 2 VR is due in 2 to 3 years with an expected 4k screen and 3rd generation in 5+ years is when I think screens will be good enough. I have been consistent in my viewpoint, not all over the place. No goal posts have moved.

“Saying "people dont have space for VR" looks nonsensical when pushing projectors as being "superior to TV". And that is before even considering the entertainment advantages the VR offers over a flat screen. “

Again you have misunderstood my point of view and it’s not just the physical space it’s the social space. There is a world of difference between a family sitting down and watching TV on a TV or projector in the living room to having someone wearing a VR helmet in the middle of the living room. A lot of people after getting home from work don’t want to A: be walking about in VR in the middle of the room as they want to sit down and relax, B) don’t want someone else in VR in the middle of the living room effectively making the living room unusable for everyone else. C) don’t have the space for VR walking about but do have the space for a projector or TV. To be clear I don't mean VR is unsuitable for everyone its just I don't see it as practical or that good for many family's and so will remain a niche product.

A lot of people think projectors are superior to TV’s which is why the projector market has taken off in the past few years. But still I am not sure we should go into which is better TV’s or projectors as that’s too far off topic, perhaps start a new thread if you want to go into it? Going back to VR I can agree there are entertainment advantages of VR over a flat screen but there are a lot of disadvantages with VR over a flat screen. Which is why I said VR will be a small subset, not mainstream. I just don't see VR breaking past a few million units a years and so will not be mainstream.

 

[andybird123]

VR is already selling a few million units per year. So you are basically saying you see no growth in 10 years, when just about every company in any way connected with the entertainment industry disagrees with you.

You dont have to walk about to make use of VR. Its like saying video games will never take off because you need a steering wheel to play games, when what you mean is that you CAN use a steering wheel to play SOME games.

Most families dont want the kids playing video games when the parents want to watch a film, or whatever. VR doesnt massivley change that dynamic, yet video games generally are pretty mainstream, in fact VR allows someone to play console games while the TV can be used for other things.

VR can also be a social experience, either in the same room or remotely. Its a non-argument to say that VR has to take over the livingroom.

VR increases options, but you are only looking at it in terms of what options you think it removes, when it really doesnt.

 

[Pottsey]

“VR is already selling a few million units per year. So you are basically saying you see no growth in 10 years, when just about every company in any way connected with the entertainment industry disagrees with you.”

I wasn’t talking about the rubbish cardboard and cheap plastic units but the real full units. Based on the most recent numbers that I have seen the full VR units didn’t ship a million units last year and we are half though the year and a very long way from a million units already sold per year. Perhaps we might break a million units after the PlayStation VR comes out but as of right now we are not already selling a few million units per year unless I missed some massive jump in numbers. Last time I looked at numbers there was an initial rush for VR then a big drop off. Strategy Analytics have revised the numbers down massively due to prohibitively high pricing. Have you got any data to say otherwise? Personally I don’t count cheap bits of plastic or cardboard as real full VR units. My numbers comments in my older posts are about the real full units.

“VR can also be a social experience, either in the same room or remotely. Its a non-argument to say that VR has to take over the livingroom.”

No one ever said VR has to take over the living room. Why do you keep twisting my comments to mean worse then I say? What I said was many family's would not be keen on VR in the living room. For many family’s current style VR is unrealistic for the living room. Yes VR can be a social experience but most VR content is anti social. Most VR content is more anti social then flat screen gaming or watching a TV which is a problem you don't seem to be seeing.

“You dont have to walk about to make use of VR. Its like saying video games will never take off because you need a steering wheel to play games, when what you mean is that you CAN use a steering wheel to play SOME games.”

It’s more like saying you can play games with a steering wheel but only a small subset of games benefit from the steering wheel. So the steering wheel makes up a small subset of gamers. VR is like the steering wheel you can use VR to play games but only a small subset will use VR to play games. Perhaps a bigger subset then steering wheels but the point stands it will be a niche subset.

“VR increases options, but you are only looking at it in terms of what options you think it removes, when it really doesnt.”

That’s wrong I am not only looking at what options VR removes and you have yet to provide a convincing argument for why VR will go mainstream. I can see VR getting way more popular but not to the point where it go mainstream any time soon.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Subscribe or sign in to read? Yeah, that explains the CB title. I'm out, have fun.

 

[andybird123]

P, we arent talking about "current style VR", and VR is not just games. We are talking about the future potential of VR to go mainstream. Of course a half kilo bulky contraption with cables hanging out of it is not going mainstream. But Ive pointed out repeatedly the advancements they are working on to remove cables and so on.

As I've already pointed out, you are trying to talk about a subset of what VR is capable of to say that VR wont become mainstream.

Gaming VR will benefit from the advancements that widespread VR brings, but VR is not just games. If anything gaming VR headsets can be cheaper than general use VR headsets because a standalone headset needs to be self powered, where as gaming VR relies on an external processing platform like a PC or console.

I've said this many times so I don't see how you could have misconstrued what I was talking about.

I see VR becoming at least as ubiquitous as games consoles. In fact more so since all the big phone makers are specifically adapting their phones to be used as VR headsets.

All of the R&D going in to VR benefits PC gamers ultimately, making all levels of headset cheaper, better, faster, lighter.

I disagree that eventually only a subset of gamers will use a headset. I think most people with a PC or console will eventually have a headset, for all of the advantages I've already spelled out.

I'm not twisting what you are saying;

. For example if someone is using a VR setup in the lounge that puts the social/family area off limits for everyone else. Not practical for many families.

What is the difference between "taking over" and "off limits"?

 

[Pottsey]

VR is not just games but that is by far the biggest use of VR. ( I include those experience story style apps and interactive story’s as gaming). Yes I was talking about a subset but I was talking about the largest subset and if I don’t think that’s enough to go mainstream I don’t see how all the other even smaller subsets will be enough.

At least we both agree VR will get more popular, we just don’t agree on the scale of how popular it will get. For me there is a limit to how far VR can go as its too anti-social and has to many problems I am not convinced can be fixed even with lots of R&D although some of the problems like the screen can be fixed in 5+ years.

 

[andybird123]

Thats where I disagree, i think by far the biggest use of VR/AR will be non-gaming and "passive" entertainment. But its those markets that will drive wider adoption and justify the R&D required to solve the problems, solutions for which are already being demoed in a working format, they just need to be integrated in to a single device.

The one thing thats not 100% solved is inside out tracking, but I find it hard to believe that won't also be solved within 5 years with the money companies like facebook and google are throwing at it.

There are already social apps and platforms being built up around VR. For people who can physically meet up then maybe other formats will still be preferred (though i can see use cases that allow same roon VR/AR to be useful) but then there are also use cases for VR to allow remote social or business collaboration which are also already being demoed.

I've already tried 4K VR (on a sony Z5) and that is even without 4K content and non-VR-optimised optics. With proper optics a 4K screen will be plenty good enough for mainstream. I dont see why that should take more than 5 years to come to market. There's rumours that a dual 2560x1440 headset will be out next year, or even if we have to wait for Vive/Rift v2 then that would be within 2 years. The phone based VR is effectively already at 4K with the Z5 again with Samsung could be by next year. Dual 4K could be easily within 4-6years, because the panels are being demoed right now. Why would they have pre-production on something they dont intend to release for 6 years?

Remember, the benefit of high resolution for a headset is removing screen door, you dont actually need to process at the full resolution and particularly not if you have foveated rendering (also being demoed now).

 

[Pottsey]

Fair enough if you don’t agree on the biggest use of VR. Personally I don’t think passive entrainment will take off due to the anti-social problems VR causes. Well it might take off when VR gets good enough to fit inside glasses so you can still interact with the outside world but that’s not going happen any time soon. We will see over time how VR evolves.


“With proper optics a 4K screen will be plenty good enough for mainstream. I dont see why that should take more than 5 years to come to market.”

There is more to the screens not being good enough then just 4k. I don’t even consider the current desktop 4k screens on the market good enough to buy yet alone talking about VR. I didn’t say 5 years till 4k screens arrive in VR I said 5 years until I think the screens will be good enough.

We expect new versions of VR every 2 to 3 years so generation 3 should arrive in 5 to 6 years and I don’t expect screens and hardware to be good enough until generation 3 VR. I am sure Generation 2 VR will be a vast improvement over 1st generation and Gen 2 will most likely be the point I buy in, but generation 3 will be when I expect VR to be more perfected and to gain popularity.

 

[andybird123]

other than resolution, what is it about the screens you think is not good enough? you haven't actually at any point explained what you think the issue is, you keep saying "it won't be main stream because problems" without explaining what you think the problems are, I've said "if you mean resolution then..." and you don't actually respond to clarify

 

[Pottsey]

I already explained a long list of problems. As for the screen the refresh rate and pixel density are far too low and I don’t think the 4k screens expected in generation 2 will be enough. I don’t expect the screens to be great until generation 3 VR.

So far I have not seen any convincing reasons why VR will be attractive and used mainstream. It only seems to appeal to a small subset of users. (small as up to a few million). For the most part I don't see all these other markets like VR to allow remote social or business collaborations to be that useful or to really take off. It will most likely happen on a tiny scale but not widespread. Same for the social platforms I only expect them to happen on a small scale. Why would they become widespread? Same for "passive" entertainment. Why pick VR over the other options? What makes you think VR will grow in that area?

EDIT: VR is too inconvenient to use with too little benefit for widespread use in meetings, social situations, social platforms or in education.