Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The 3D TV comparison is completely tired at this point. VR is a new form of HCI, not a questionably improved display technology. Besides that point, if you're only looking at VR as "games" you're missing the boat entirely.



I would say that spatial controllers are a new* form of HCI, but not necessarily the VR viewer. Although I would concede that there are a few experiences that track what you're looking at to interact, it's really mostly focused on the controllers.

Many VR gamers who use traditional dual-analog style controllers concede that it's not really different in terms of HCI model.

* = "new" meaning unconventional and/or untapped in the current mindshare of HCI. Obviously this stuff has existed for decades.


I think the usability of spatial controllers is pretty tightly linked to use of a VR viewer, since it's the HMD that constructs the "space" for the controllers to work in. I don't think Tilt Brush would translate well to a regular monitor with spatial controllers. I can see some potential with 3D displays, but I think if spatial control enough was a paradigm shift then the motion controllers we've seen in gaming applications previously would have translated to professional applications the way VR is now.

VR gamers using traditional dual-analog style controllers aren't leveraging the full spatial immersion of VR, so they don't report a spatially immersive experience. When I describe "VR as HCI" I mean everything involved in immersing someone in an altered reality, and the HMD is only part of that. I think it's more apt to say "XR is a new form of HCI," to include tech like the Hololens, but that terminology hasn't really entered the common lexicon yet.

VR and XR as a whole give unprecedented access to the primary I/O pathway of the human: our eyes and our hands.


> I think the usability of spatial controllers is pretty tightly linked to use of a VR viewer

I see what you're getting at, but remember that the first wildly successful spatial controller was released over 10 years ago: the Wiimote.


> The 3D TV comparison is completely tired at this point

Why do you say that? I think the 3D TV comparison is fairly accurate. If VR (or AR) requires anything more bulky than regular eye glasses, I can't see it becoming a huge success. Part of why I think VR makes a neat demo only is because the current crop of VR headsets get uncomfortable very quickly.

> VR is a new form of HCI

New? I first tried VR 25 years ago and I know it's older than that.

> if you're only looking at VR as "games" you're missing the boat entirely

So if gaming isn't the primary user and driver of VR hardware and software, what is? What industry is putting the most investment into VR right now? From the current generation, I really have only looked at consumer setups like Vive, Playstation, and Oculus. I haven't tried Microsoft's product or Magic Leap so maybe they would change my mind?


I mean "new" as in "newly practically accessible." CAVE wasn't exactly accessible to your average hacker hobbyist but anyone with a gaming computer and $800 has access to VR - and going forward, anyone with a solid GPU and $400 will have access, and so on. The 3D TV comparison is accurate in that both things require you to have something inconvenient on your head, but I'm pretty surprised if you genuinely find the Oculus Rift to "get uncomfortable very quickly." And, remember the devices currently on the market are akin to consumer-ready dev kits - particularly the Vive. They are MADE for early adopters who are prepared to be inconvenienced.

Just like with CAVE 25 years ago, there's a lot of ongoing research efforts to use VR in areas outside gaming - such as replicating experiences over and over that can't dependably be replicated in real life, or leveraging VR as an HCI tool in existing applications. To refer to AR, Boeing has already used a hologram device for aircraft electrical assembly for years. Educationally, VR has serious potential in fields like medical instruction and training.

I agree, gaming and porn will and are driving adoption of VR to the wide consumer market, but its actual applications go way beyond a litmus test of "well the games still aren't fun enough."


Basic interaction design is still being done on VR and AR. There are new forms of HCI currently being made around them. http://elevr.com/some-rather-different-social-vr-experiments... http://elevr.com/all-about-the-context/


> So if gaming isn't the primary user and driver of VR hardware and software, what is?

Perhaps pornography? VR could offer a completely novel set of experiences


The porn industry has already dumped an insane amount of money into VR and is presumably seeing quite a return, since the major players have only accelerated their pace of output. Just like with other technologies, porn companies have already driven the consumer innovations streaming VR video from the internet, capturing 3D 180 footage, and defining best practices for immersive content. I'm sure "novel" experiences are on their way eventually, but right now the money's being made just making 3D180 videos for mobile VR platforms.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: