By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Former Microsoft CTO says VR/AR at least 'a decade' away from being mainstream

its too expensive to do well

a mainstream successfully done Virtual Reality gaming platform that actually SOMEWHAT achieves what its meant to do is very far off. even the models today that are somewhat in the right direction are incredibly expensive

for a mainstream console like price for this it won't be likely for decades

not to say that the technology isn't there or doesn't exist, but there isn't enough effort being put towards it to make the price point drop or the technology advance enough. things like military weaponry, tools to get resources better, even phones- those are continually advanced because there's such heavy demand for innovation

unfortunately the interest in VR is too obscure for it to become an accessible standard anytime soon for the mass market



Around the Network
mountaindewslave said:

its too expensive to do well

a mainstream successfully done Virtual Reality gaming platform that actually SOMEWHAT achieves what its meant to do is very far off. even the models today that are somewhat in the right direction are incredibly expensive

for a mainstream console like price for this it won't be likely for decades

not to say that the technology isn't there or doesn't exist, but there isn't enough effort being put towards it to make the price point drop or the technology advance enough. things like military weaponry, tools to get resources better, even phones- those are continually advanced because there's such heavy demand for innovation

unfortunately the interest in VR is too obscure for it to become an accessible standard anytime soon for the mass market


What? In late 2012 Oculus launched the DK1. It had 640 X 800 pixels per eye, it runs at 60 Hz, latency of 60 ms, and no positional tracking.

 

In the first quarter of 2016, they launch the CV1. It has 1080 X 1200 pixels per eye, runs at 90 Hz, latency of 18 ms, and AMOLED screen, and positional tracking.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

It's going to be huge.

I can't get enough VR.



One word and I can completely wreck his statement. Ready?

Porn.



Normchacho said:
mountaindewslave said:

its too expensive to do well

a mainstream successfully done Virtual Reality gaming platform that actually SOMEWHAT achieves what its meant to do is very far off. even the models today that are somewhat in the right direction are incredibly expensive

for a mainstream console like price for this it won't be likely for decades

not to say that the technology isn't there or doesn't exist, but there isn't enough effort being put towards it to make the price point drop or the technology advance enough. things like military weaponry, tools to get resources better, even phones- those are continually advanced because there's such heavy demand for innovation

unfortunately the interest in VR is too obscure for it to become an accessible standard anytime soon for the mass market


What? In late 2012 Oculus launched the DK1. It had 640 X 800 pixels per eye, it runs at 60 Hz, latency of 60 ms, and no positional tracking.

 

In the first quarter of 2016, they launch the CV1. It has 1080 X 1200 pixels per eye, runs at 90 Hz, latency of 18 ms, and AMOLED screen, and positional tracking.

But it's not 4k per eye at 120fps for $99! No effort!

Actually in 1991 it was up to 1024x768 already, unfortunately only at 15fps or so, plus it came with a whole pod and cost $50k to install.
The consumer version was 240x160 or someting for over $1000 at crap frame rate and not to forget huge.

Sure in another decade it will be 4k, with affordable computer hardware to provide the image at 120fps. Perhaps eye tracking will work by then solving the disconnect between vergence and accomodation, next to speeding up rendering tenfold with foveated rendering. Glasses should be smaller too. Maybe a breakthrough in battery technology will allow the thing to be lightweight and self powered for many hours.

Yet I didn't wait to watch tv until I had my flatscreen HDTV. I didn't wait to play 3D games until the ugly early stages were done. I didn't wait with playing computer games until it was socially acceptable. (Is it now for 30+ crowd?) Why wait with VR until the technology is perfected.

But sure, I had NVidia 3D shutter glasses in 1998 which I only used for a few months until I was done with stereoscopic 3D. Never felt inclined to go back. It's very possible that VR will have the same fate. Yet playing Descent 2 on a crappy second hand CRT projector in 320x240 with flickering glasses on my face, seeing those fire balls fly through the room, through the wall and beyond, that magical feeling is what I'm looking for. Hopefully this time it will last.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
Normchacho said:
mountaindewslave said:


What? In late 2012 Oculus launched the DK1. It had 640 X 800 pixels per eye, it runs at 60 Hz, latency of 60 ms, and no positional tracking.

 

In the first quarter of 2016, they launch the CV1. It has 1080 X 1200 pixels per eye, runs at 90 Hz, latency of 18 ms, and AMOLED screen, and positional tracking.

But it's not 4k per eye at 120fps for $99! No effort!

Actually in 1991 it was up to 1024x768 already, unfortunately only at 15fps or so, plus it came with a whole pod and cost $50k to install.
The consumer version was 240x160 or someting for over $1000 at crap frame rate and not to forget huge.

Sure in another decade it will be 4k, with affordable computer hardware to provide the image at 120fps. Perhaps eye tracking will work by then solving the disconnect between vergence and accomodation, next to speeding up rendering tenfold with foveated rendering. Glasses should be smaller too. Maybe a breakthrough in battery technology will allow the thing to be lightweight and self powered for many hours.

Yet I didn't wait to watch tv until I had my flatscreen HDTV. I didn't wait to play 3D games until the ugly early stages were done. I didn't wait with playing computer games until it was socially acceptable. (Is it now for 30+ crowd?) Why wait with VR until the technology is perfected.

But sure, I had NVidia 3D shutter glasses in 1998 which I only used for a few months until I was done with stereoscopic 3D. Never felt inclined to go back. It's very possible that VR will have the same fate. Yet playing Descent 2 on a crappy second hand CRT projector in 320x240 with flickering glasses on my face, seeing those fire balls fly through the room, through the wall and beyond, that magical feeling is what I'm looking for. Hopefully this time it will last.


Speaking of price, the DK1 was $299. The CV1 doesn't have a price yet, but it will likely cost something like $349 or $399. A $100 more expensive isn't too shabby for such a massive improvement, plus it comes with a controller and headphones.

 

I agree with your sentiment that something doesn't need to be perfect for it to catch on. I mentioned earlier that we sell a VR view master at work that has been selling quite well.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

AlfredoTurkey said:
One word and I can completely wreck his statement. Ready?

Porn.


Its going to happend... someone somewhere will do it, and it ll probably end up being one of the driveing forces of VR/AR.



JRPGfan said:
method114 said:

I don't think AR will be huge for phones until we don't have to wear something on our face. People don't want to wear things on their face period. It's been proven time and time again they just don't like it. For gaming it's ok because it's temporary and at home. When your trying to go out and have fun and you don't want something on your face all the time.


I have glasses, I love being able to "see" 20/20.

I can imagine some slightly heavier "kinda weak" AR glasses that hook up to your phone, being common place in the future.

There is no way to get AR without wearing anything btw.

You might love glasses but the majority of people don't. You can find an exception to any rule but at the end of the day the majority of people don't. Right now there is no way to get AR without wearing anything in the future it might be different. I just don't see AR being used beyond buisnessess. Hanging out with your friends no one is going to want something hanging on their head.



JRPGfan said:
AlfredoTurkey said:
One word and I can completely wreck his statement. Ready?

Porn.


Its going to happend... someone somewhere will do it, and it ll probably end up being one of the driveing forces of VR/AR.


Of course it will. Even if it's just immersion. Imagine, instead of watching two women make love on their bed, you were actually IN the room with them 5 feet away, watching them. How much better of an experience is that? Now imagine that while they're making love, they're talking to you and looking at you the whole time. That's all completely possible with VR and it's not something that is in the distant future. 

When the porn industry gets involved, this thing is going to take off and take off quickly.