Hacker News Reader

Comment by hacym | Hacker News Reader

I think you’re looking at VR from a point of view that it can do no wrong, for some reason. If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?

The answer is pretty simple… because it’s really not. The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy.

VR has had enough time to see adoption numbers reach critical mass. They just haven’t. Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.

View on HN

> I think you’re looking at VR from a point of view that it can do no wrong

No. I know VR has a ton of problems, but for the people who have actually tried it extensively, none of those problems are mentioned by people who have near zero experience with modern VR ie not Google Cardboard

> If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?

Several factors:

1. price and complexity for PCVR

2. Facebook’s brand is destroyed for the current working population. Even though it released a technological marvel, no one is even willing to try it just because it’s from Facebook. I write about it in more detail in other comments

3. Some people just don’t like to do any physical activity

> The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy

How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point

> Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.

Which headset do you own?

> How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point

Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution of the same thing.

All of your points do very little to address VR concerns. It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR? Shouldn’t it appeal to someone that’s lazy and doesn’t want to go outside?

Facebook is far from the only player in the game. But their inability to make meaningful content with such a large investment should tell you something.

VR is a niche idea that has performed about as well as you can expect. Very few people want to go and work with a VR headset. I think it’s also fighting the trend of people wanting actual experiences, not virtual reality. If I can spend $1000 on a VR headset that will eventually just gather dust or choose to actually go somewhere, I’d choose the latter. Many people would.

I suspect it’ll end up the way 3D TVs did.

> Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution if the same thing.

It’s not a bad assumption because you never mentioned an actual problem with VR (and they are many). What you’ve done is simply parrot people who haven’t experienced VR for more than 5 minutes if at all. Like the previous parent commenter, you still haven’t mentioned which modern headset you’ve owned.

> It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR?

I’ve ordered adoption hurdles according to importance and prevalence. It is a factor, but not the biggest one.

> Facebook is far from the only player in the game.

Meta is the only large publicly traded company that’s shipped something worthwhile for the masses at large. Sony and Apple will enter soon, but that won’t happen until next year.

So you have to be a publicly traded company to deliver a product now? A quick search shows several big companies — HP, HTC, Valve, Samsung, for example — that have highly rated equipment.

My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”, I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers. This is no demonstrated value of VR, and what it does offer is fairly lackluster once the novelty wears off.

Seems like you’ve fallen for the Meta ads about how this is life changing. In its current form, it’s not even close.

> So you have to be a publicly traded company to deliver a product now?

No, but they’re the only ones with enough resources to burn. Of the companies that you’ve named, none of them has made a VR system for the masses when the price for entry is about $3000 for a complete PCVR system. To add insult to injury, they’re not even wireless

> My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”

Yes, it doesn’t stand because you haven’t used it enough. If your only impression of the internet was Yahoo, I don’t feel that it’s fair or accurate to say that the entire internet sucks. Your complaints are vague and they still reflect that of a person with near 0 experience in VR and that’s why I can’t take you seriously.

> I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers

I don’t expect the masses to be able to see or understand the future. They don’t have the skill set for that. Conversely, most people on HN have that skill. I’m just asking people here to use it with enough data

Reply on news.ycombinator.com