Comment by duped | Hacker News Reader

Comment by duped | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I used to work in the space about 6-7 years ago (not directly on XR hardware, but software that was adjacent to it in the content creation world).

The phrase I kept hearing from film studio/director types was that they didn't know how to tell a story with VR that could only be told with VR (profitably). Note that didn't stop them from trying and there wasn't a shortage of ideas. The point was that they hadn't figured out what would actually resonate with audiences (and make more money than doing what they already knew).

But things are different now. Back then, the problem was that VR in your home was a dead-end. What seemed promising was using it for theme park rides and people at Universal/Disney were super excited about it. So the "story" they were trying to design was something that was mass marketable with IP tie-ins, short enough not to tire the average American and maximize throughput while also minimizing floor space in the places they'd install. That's a very different kind of experience than a film or video game.

I think with cheaper/lighter hardware the profit model could be different and the kind of content you consume with it would become different. I don't think people have figured it out yet, but with hardware changes there's a different kind of story that can work and it just needs the right storyteller to figure it out.

All that said, the problem all these tech bro led companies forget is that content is king in this space and you can't just make some cool gizmo and expect people to buy it when no one knows how to create for it. For all their flaws, Magic Leap was actually smarter about that than their competition.

I've been thinking there could be a market for place-based experiences with XR headsets. Like you go to the Paleontology museum and it gets turned into something like "Jurassic Park". Something like that ought to be a lot cheaper to develop and deploy than a typical theme park ride. I was a little disappointed when I got the MQ3 and found it didn't have the same persistent SLAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_... that Hololens does, mainly on the pretext of privacy, but that does make it a little harder to make an app bound to a specific place.

I see that kind of thing having a window of opportunity between when it is possible and when everybody has an XR headset and there is nothing special about it. The slower XR is to catch on, the wider the window.

> I've been thinking there could be a market for place-based experiences with XR headset

You're not far off, the industry buzzword is "LBE" for "location based experiences." There was a startup that was killed by COVID/mismanagement called the Void that was building some great LBE stuff with tie-ins to Disney IP (Star Wars, Marvel, etc) and had locations in their parks.

There is definitely a market for it, and even "cheap" LBE like escape rooms have kind of proven that there's a market for entertainment that works like a ride.

> The phrase I kept hearing from film studio/director types was that they didn't know how to tell a story with VR that could only be told with VR (profitably).

This was my exact same complaint within my group creating VR content around the same time. Gaming is a no-brainer. It was the live action that was the blocker. Directors want to control the narrative with various techniques like blocking, depth of field, framing, etc. Within VR, all of that control is lost. Within VR means that it is possible the viewer isn't even looking in the right direction as the director intended. Putting the camera in motion is weird for the viewer since the viewer did not initiate it (unless it was something obvious like being in a car/roller coaster/etc).

I think if you ask the question, how do you make a compelling narrative when there's one camera, it can move anywhere on set, and it's sentient? One answer is "that's a video game." And there's definitely a lot of ways to tell a story through gameplay.

But a lot of filmmakers don't want to make video games, and finding new answers to that question is something that VR struggles with today.

> I think if you ask the question, how do you make a compelling narrative when there's one camera, it can move anywhere on set, and it's sentient?

There's live theater too. Could be an interesting way to experience front-row tickets for a play. But what could AVP provide that a live play couldn't? Maybe putting the viewer in the middle of the stage, but it would be a pain to keep rotating to witness the action.

My understanding is the economics don't work out for live theater. Most productions struggle to fill seats and have pricing issues. The productions that don't struggle (eg: Broadway) don't want to lower the demand for seats. That said, there is a financing issue with Broadway where productions are getting more expensive but audiences are price sensitive after some point, and with the finite number of seats available there's essentially a cap on the revenue they can bring in.

That's also ignoring the artistic issues with convincing actors/directors to design and conduct performances for audiences in a completely new way, which is the problem I was alluding to earlier.

> Maybe putting the viewer in the middle of the stage, but it would be a pain to keep rotating to witness the action.

This has been done before (I've even been to a few local productions where this is the norm) but you have to keep in mind the production is designed for the venue its performed in and where the audience is located.

I think there's a kind of theater production where you could use VR as a tool to a lot of success but I think the work has to be written for it, a production team that's down with it, a cast that can be trained to do it, and pricing model that makes it profitable.

It's a very hard problem domain that isn't technical. It's artistic, social, and economic.

---

I think ballet would be a much better fit than theater, for what its worth.

> But a lot of filmmakers don't want to make video games, and finding new answers to that question is something that VR struggles with today.

Part of me flippantly says that most directors are making nothing but a demo of a video game since it's all CG anyways.

Another part of me says this is also where the generative AI characters will not be something a traditional director will even be interested in. Part of being a director is working with actors and getting them to deliver the performance they want. There are different types of directors, and the type that are an "actor's" director will not be interested in it at all. Those that are more technical and just want tech to tell a cool story might be interested since it takes that weird human interaction out of the equation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com