Do you have VR?

Sirius · **Joined:** Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:41 am **Posts:** 61

belford wrote:

So has VR. The first time, in the late 90s.

Sure, if you put aside the billions more people that know about it. That, and the fact that at the time even professionals couldn't get VR working, while today anyone can put a phone in a cardboard viewer.

belford · **Joined:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:01 pm **Posts:** 1890

I'm just pointing out that you're arguing from a position of faith. There's no historical inevitability here.

Like the old saying: "They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Yes, you could have written a skeptical article about color TV, and you would have been wrong. You could also have written a skeptical article about home 3D TV sets, and you would have been right. That fizzled.

FreddyD · **Joined:** Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:16 am **Posts:** 19

^ Bingo.

Why 3D TV Failed (And Why We Don't Care)

Shambling corpse of 3D TV finally falls down dead

Although VR isn't dead, there are parallels. The headgear. The eyestrain. The lack of really compelling content. The feeling for most consumers that it's an interesting technology, but more hassle and expense than it's worth.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:56 am

Despite my distaste, criticism, and cynicism about 3D and VR, which I'll just lump together into the same hype machine, I'll say this: Technology isn't spontaneously parthenogenic from idea to mature solution. In this case, each generation seems to take at least a decade and we're only a few strides along in a marathon. Call me when holodecks are perfected.

Sirius · **Joined:** Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:41 am **Posts:** 61

belford wrote:

I'm just pointing out that you're arguing from a position of faith. There's no historical inevitability here.

Which isn't what your post was saying, and still doesn't solve the few more billions people knowing about VR. I also don't see what faith has to do here, when we're talking fact and historical events. But whatever.

Regardless, I agree people being divided by technology doesn't mean technology will be successful. When Oculus kickstarted their first VR headset, I'd even agreed there was a huge risk for it to be unsuccessful. Heck, I even agree with Freddy about that:

FreddyD wrote:

Although VR isn't dead, there are parallels. The headgear. The eyestrain. The lack of really compelling content. The feeling for most consumers that it's an interesting technology, but more hassle and expense than it's worth.

And yet 3D movies in cinemas are still a huge success. This is exactly what Belford is saying - the exact same condition, yet one technology was successful, the other wasn't. Until a specific point in time, you can't say for sure if a technology will be successful.

What I'm saying is, I don't believe in VR because I like it, I believe in it because it's ubiquitous. Given the success of VR in recent months, I think we're long past the point of uncertainty, which is the only thing we won't agree on because despite having similar arguments we are experiencing the success of VR on different levels - simply because you can't expect every community to react like all the others do.

But today is today. Like I said, I feel we have similar arguments but simply different exposition to the success of VR, which means this debate won't get us anywhere since we're beginning to compare opinions and not facts.
Therefore I'll just call it a day, and hope we can leave on good terms

korovev · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:37 pm

Consumer VR failed repeatedly; in industry, military, surgical, work safety, etc., in short in applications where people actually had a need for VR, it never stopped being used.
So I do think it’s only a matter of VR tech finally meeting consumers (gamers?) expectations, for it to become more than a recurring fad.
VR sickness might turn out to be inevitable, at least until controlled lucid dreaming would become possible. Then again, controlled LD could be even scarier that VR...

But I disagree on the alienation thing, technology might encourage behaviors, but not be the cause: people with issues are going to have issues regardless of which distractions are available to them, be it VR, cell phones, psychoactive drugs or fidget spinners. Pointing fingers at the distractions solves very little.

Also, 3D TV/cinema and VR run on two rather separate tracks, the former failing doesn’t necessarily tells anything about the success of the latter.

Nalates · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:02 pm

korovev wrote:

Consumer VR failed repeatedly; in industry, military, surgical, work safety, etc., in short in applications where people actually had a need for VR, it never stopped being used.

VR is being used in more places than ever before, but they are business applications. Unions are training members using VR. Automotive body repair painting has been successful. Flight simulators are changing from giant screens to VR. Any place where there is a financial advantage and a reason for the participants to put up with the discomforts.

So, as Korovev says, VR has been in use and is remaining in use. How it looks is changing.

FreddyD · **Joined:** Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:16 am **Posts:** 19

Sirius wrote:

And yet 3D movies in cinemas are still a huge success.

With apologies for the nitpick, I'm not sure that's entirely correct...

The reign of 3D is over in US cinemas

Quote:

From the dizzying heights of Avatar, it now seems 3D films are no longer a draw for American audiences. Last year, the 3D box office shrunk 8% in the US and Canada to its lowest point since 2009, while the overall box office grew in those markets, the Motion Picture Association of America found...

3D is ‘No Longer The Default’ Says IMAX

Quote:

IMAX has revealed that 3D is “no longer the default,” confirming what many have expected for a while: the majority of film fans prefer 2D screenings. With 2D, you don’t have to wear those annoying glasses, headaches are less likely, and the ticket price is often cheaper.... The share of 3D revenue in 2016 was 14% of the overall cinematic box office. Back in 2010, when 3D was fresh and exciting, that figure stood at 21%. 3D tickets made a total $2.2 billion in 2010, but in 2016 that total sum was $1.6 billion. That’s a significant decrease.

The One Thing We All Agree On: 3-D Movies Must Die

Quote:

Late last week, The Hollywood Reporter did some Pulitzer-worthy reporting that pointed to a glorious trend: 3-D is on the decline. Three-dimensional movies, which accounted for 21 percent of North American box-office revenue in 2010, accounted for only 14 percent in 2016. That’s a 33 percent reduction in revenue share in just six years. According to the piece, which was coauthored by Carolyn Giardina and Pamela McClintock, movie distributors are deciding to stop selling what audiences have decided to stop buying. “Imax announced last week during its earnings call that it would be reducing its 3-D slate in the domestic market, citing a ‘clear preference’ for 2-D from audiences,” one blessed sentence read. Yes, 3-D is going down.

FreddyD · **Joined:** Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:16 am **Posts:** 19

korovev wrote:

Also, 3D TV/cinema and VR run on two rather separate tracks, the former failing doesn’t necessarily tells anything about the success of the latter.

I suspect that in the minds of many consumers, VR and 3D TV/cinema are perceived as close cousins, if not siblings. The parallels include increased cost, limited content, competing formats, compromised image quality, inconvenient and even uncomfortable devices you must wear on your face, and for many, headaches and eyestrain.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:07 pm

FreddyD, I'm glad you got to it first with supporting contradictions. I suppressed my own laconic post for lack of same, but now I can post what I intended. Because it is so self-evident, my reply was just going to be:

Sirius wrote:

And yet 3D movies in cinemas are still a huge success.

No.

Do you have VR?

Who is online