Support NeoGAF

[James Coote]

Also on the anti-social argument, if you've ever worn an Oculus Rift Dk1, it is quite an involved process, strapping this thing to your head, a set of headphones over the top, and all those wires limiting your movement.

The tech is improving in terms of wearability, towards eventually being wireless, light, easy to slip on and off, and with a "see-through" option... So basically Google glass. It could be the two technologies eventually converge, in which case the whole AR/VR debate is irrelevant, since devices will do both.

 

[Seanspeed]

To the people missing former Valve's VR dev point and bringing up reading books (LMAO) as an example, this is how "reading books" and "VR" is experienced by the mainstream media and common people:

BOOKS

vs

VR

VR has to overcome a hill that is 1000x taller than the one that, probably, buried Google Glass.

VR *is* the ultimate antisocial technology. But I wouldn't mind playing Demon's Souls with it - it would be the closest to "being" there experience possible.

Joke post, right?

 

[Nipo]

To the people missing former Valve's VR dev point and bringing up reading books (LMAO) as an example, this is how "reading books" and "VR" is experienced by the mainstream media and common people:

BOOKS

vs

VR

VR has to overcome a hill that is 1000x taller than the one, probably, buried Google Glass.

VR *is* the ultimate antisocial technology. But I wouldn't mind playing Demon's Souls with it - it would be the closest to "being" there experience possible.

Those people are talking about, not reading books. I think I went nearly a month without leaving my house or seeing another human when I binge read the Malazan series.

In a society where a good number of people spend 8 hours a day sitting in a Office/cube working with the majority of their interaction being done by email/phone VR isn't that much of a change.

 

[Jinroh]

I never cared about that social bullshit they're trying to sell because it makes tons of money. The only social thing I usually play is Battlefield, and it consists in fragging people online.

So VR is perfect for me.

 

[JNT]

Just to flesh out the argument against VR; realistically, only core gamers are going to ever have and use one of these things in their home.

VR applied to games (in the traditional sense) is just an immediately logical area of application. The other areas of application are yet to be discovered, and I believe it is these new doors, that are only now opening, that will lead to widespread adoption in the long-term. And I don't believe that insular experiences is what is going to lead VR to widespread adoption.

 

[eXistor]

I also don't see VR becoming the end-all means to playing videogames. It's gonna be a great option for select games, but I doubt it's gonna become the standard anytime soon. It will happen, yes, but this will take years and years.

 

[Seanspeed]

Those people are talking about, not reading books. I think I went nearly a month without leaving my house or seeing another human when I binge read the Malazan series.

In a society where a good number of people spend 8 hours a day sitting in a Office/cube working with the majority of their interaction being done by email/phone VR isn't that much of a change.

And the 2nd picture of them reading is in a classroom setting where VR actually has massive potential for some truly amazing and revolutionary educational tools.

I also don't see VR becoming the end-all means to playing videogames. It's gonna be a great option for select games, but I doubt it's gonna become the standard anytime soon. It will happen, yes, but this will take years and years.

Read the OP/article. This is not what the discussion is.

You're also contradicting yourself with that last sentence.

 

[Refreshment.01]

The man is right but i don't think people atracted to VR cares. i'll argue that some people are still quiet anti social even in more traditional gaming, so even with VR the status quo would be maintaned for them.

Let's not forget the small screen experience also, we see people living close to each other that interact with each other through a cell phone screen, that's pretty anti social but accepted these days.

 

[mrklaw]

It amazes me how people cannot work out how having a VR set strapped to your head is inherently anti social. '' Bu bu but TVs and books are anti social too'' No, they're not, and to.say the are is to misappropriate the term.

If I'm reading a book, and my flatmate asks me to give him a hand drying the dishes, I can put my book down and go help. If I'm playing videogames on a TV, and he needs some help pulling dinner out of the oven, I can pause it and go help in an instant. Those activities may be solitary, but they are not anti-social. VR, however, is. If the door knocks while I'm playing games in VR, I would be clueless. My head would be strapped to two monitors, my ears to a set of headphones. I am completely cut off from external communication, unless someone actually grabs me. Door buzzer rings, nothing I can do. Flat mate asks for help, nothing I can do. Oven timer goes off, nothing I can do. Washing needs to.be hung to dry, nothing I can do.

It is an inherently more anti.social form of entertainment, and no amount of 'online communities' will change that. Facebook is an online community, but we still call people who use it 24/7 and let their pets go.hungry anti.social bastards.

Don't wear headphone that entirely isolate you from your surroundings then? If you were wearing those headphones while playing normal games, or on a 3ds/vita, you wouldn't hear the doorbell either

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Like nuclear power, this is a genie you can neither put back in the bottle nor prevent from coming out. If it's technologically feasible to have simulated realities we are going to develop it, it's literally inevitable. So it's a question of dealing with it and adjusting more than avoiding it.

 

[Wiktor]

I think it will be more social to be honest. If you will be able to interact with people in virtual reality like you in real life then what's the difference really? Effectively there's none.
That's why I thought Matrix was built on such a bullshit premise. if you have perfect simulation of reality and everybody is in there.... then what's the problem really? How is it any different?

 

[Maintenance]

Even though I like and am waiting for it, I agree with him about VR being anti-social. Some people saying that you can interact with people the same way that you do in real life but in the VR, to me that's insane. I can't compare touching someone in RL to getting virtual feedback of touching someone. If that's the same to you, then I am truly sorry. And I say this as someone who is very recluse and that have minimal interaction with people.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

The more anti-social the better. I dont want to play with other people.

 

[James Coote]

You're still working under the assumption that VR is just for gaming or something?

And yes, early prototype VR games are going to be traditionally gamey. There isn't a single VR headset on the market, so its a little premature to start declaring that VR games aren't ever going to be properly innovative, though. The 'VR universe' is in its infancy at the moment.

Hell, 100 years from now and we may look back and think of 2D gaming as the infancy of gaming in general before *real* gaming took off with VR.

VR applied to games (in the traditional sense) is just an immediately logical area of application. The other areas of application are yet to be discovered, and I believe it is these new doors, that are only now opening, that will lead to widespread adoption in the long-term. And I don't believe that insular experiences is what is going to lead VR to widespread adoption.

Of course VR has applications beyond gaming, but not in the home

There's a danger as well, that when it's first released, it is perceived as being just for gamers, and so puts off "ordinary" consumers. Edit: In fact, Morpheus is making this worse by so visibly tying itself with PS4. (This is why Amazon's FireTV was branded as a TV streaming box, not a games console). There are 80k of the Rift out there now? It's 2 years old, so toddler age. I mean really VR should be learning to walk and talk by now.

 

[Seanspeed]

Even though I like and am waiting for it, I agree with him about VR being anti-social. Some people saying that you can interact with people the same way that you do in real life but in the VR, to me that's insane. I can't compare touching someone in RL to getting virtual feedback of touching someone. If that's the same to you, then I am truly sorry. And I say this as someone who is very recluse and that have minimal interaction with people.

Give it time.

But no, in the near future, it wont be the exact same. But it'll be far more 'real' than phone calls, Facebook, or even video chat. It can still be highly social, basically, and not this dungeon dwelling experience some people want to make it out to be.

 

[bj00rn_]

sitting on the couch where others can see what you are doing

I don't see that as a good thing at all. I'd rather adjust the ratio of how much gaming I do than giving half-assed attention to my family and myself while playing. Better give full attention to whatever I'm doing, whether it is having quality time with family or my hobbies. We made sure the TV is not the main centre of attention in our living room and placed it somewhat to the side of things for that reason, and I have my own room where I have my gaming and music equipment. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Seanspeed]

There are 80k of the Rift out there now? It's 2 years old, so toddler age. I mean really VR should be learning to walk and talk by now. Of course VR has applications beyond gaming, but not in the home. There's a danger as well, that when it's first released, it is perceived as being just for gamers, and so puts off "ordinary" consumers. (This is why Amazon's FireTV was branded as a TV streaming box, not a games console).

People who have tried the DK2 all tend to say its a generation ahead of the DK1, not only because of the better resolution, but because of the head tracking and low persistence display. That was just a year's worth of progress. And there's all sorts of control schemes and motion devices and physical movement contraptions being researched and developed. Shit is moving man.

You're also assuming that VR has the life/development span of a human for some odd reason....?

As for VR not having non-gaming applications at home, that is a baffling comment. I cant even begin to understand your reasoning there. There are already a lot of non-gaming VR applications you can use right now, at home.

 

[quantumnerd]

It would be a great simulation of reality but it would still be simulation. Generally people don't put WoW at the same level as playing basketball at the local community center or dancing at the club.

I'm not talking about WoW. What I'm proposing is a thought experiment: imagine if every person was jacked into a high-fidelity simulation of the entire earth and all its citizens. Which is pretty close to the end goal he (rightly) claims (many) VR enthusiasts have in mind. You wouldn't say "oh, it's a simulation, so socialization means nothing now." It would be just like real life. You'd socialize.

Even in smaller scale simulations, I don't understand why people think virtual interactions would have less value than in-person ones. You only need language to communicate and if you insist you also need to see the body then we can simulate that.

 

[Alx]

Even though I like and am waiting for it, I agree with him about VR being anti-social. Some people saying that you can interact with people the same way that you do in real life but in the VR, to me that's insane. I can't compare touching someone in RL to getting virtual feedback of touching someone. If that's the same to you, then I am truly sorry. And I say this as someone who is very recluse and that have minimal interaction with people.

I agree, I can't even see how you can deny the non social aspect of VR. It is great tech and has a lot of potential, but social it is not. Other solitary activities like reading books or watching TV are not as prejudiced because you just have to raise your eyes or start talking to enter social interaction, without even getting out of your solitary activity. It's not possible with VR.
And yes, wearing headphones isn't a social act either (some people can watch TV together while eating, but you wouldn't consider wearing headphones there... Well one of my colleagues does, but everybody consider him an autistic weirdo). Headphones are more social than VR only because they still let you use your eyes to perceive your environment.

 

[Raonak]

Most people play games in isolation. I myself game with headphones sitting infront of my tv. if someone were to rob my house, they could easily do it without me noticing.
VR is nothing different.

Plus an easy way to get around cetain issues; add a camera and microphone to the VR set. And have an "aware mode" where if the microphone picks up noises, it sends it to the VR's headsets. and with one touch you can switch to the camera view. Add some cool augmented reality stuff to it too.

The ultimate goal is to make the headsets smaller and smaller, eventually to the size of normal glasses, then finally as contact lenses, which will act as augmented reality displays with virutal reality modes for consuming content.

 

[Skellig Gra]

VR MMO sounds terrible to me. Half of those games is sitting around doing nothing. I'd have to take the headset off to go grab a snack while I'm waiting on a flight path. Although maybe I'm just sick of timesink mmos in general.

 

[Maintenance]

Give it time.

But no, in the near future, it wont be the exact same. But it'll be far more 'real' than phone calls, Facebook, or even video chat. It can still be highly social, basically, and not this dungeon dwelling experience some people want to make it out to be.

I understand, comparing it to other kinds of communication like those you said then yes, it will be a lot more real, but I mainly speak about direct social interaction, people with people on the same place. It will be good to see someone that you can't see directly in front of you, because it will simulate real life, but even though I am a failure at it (real life), I couldn't trade it like I heard some people say they could (for a simulated life). I'm not talking about people on this topic, just what I heard in my circle of people.

 

[WarpathDC]

Miyamoto works for Valve?

 

[fabricated backlash]

I don't understand why people would downplay the anti social nature of VR. It's a core principle of the tech as it is developed right now to focus on the singular sensory experience of a single person and no one else.

And that's not inherently a bad thing either in moderation. Just like tucking yourself away reading for a weekend isn't a bad thing. It's anti social, but many people actually need that time out for themselves. I do too. I like to draw, and be in my own mindset and shut off everything else around me. VR is just another venue for this "alone time"

The problem as with everything lies in moderation, and in that regard the designers of VR will have to consider ways to mitigate compulsive and addictive behaviour in their design (which they already are)

 

[Briarios]

I'm not talking about WoW. What I'm proposing is a thought experiment: imagine if every person was jacked into a high-fidelity simulation of the entire earth and all its citizens. Which is pretty close to the end goal he (rightly) claims (many) VR enthusiasts have in mind. You wouldn't say "oh, it's a simulation, so socialization means nothing now." It would be just like real life. You'd socialize.

Even in smaller scale simulations, I don't understand why people think virtual interactions would have less value than in-person ones. You only need language to communicate and if you insist you also need to see the body then we can simulate that.

I imagine it would be far more like anonymous Internet message postings -- a not so particularly inspiring view of humanity. Unless there are permanent social consequences for your choices, it will be nothing like real life. In real life, doing things that will embarass your family and loved ones matters. Once you have anonymity, douchebaggery rules. Unless, you're suggesting that everyone will be identified as to who they really are in VR, which kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[JNT]

Of course VR has applications beyond gaming, but not in the home

There's a danger as well, that when it's first released, it is perceived as being just for gamers, and so puts off "ordinary" consumers. Edit: In fact, Morpheus is making this worse by so visibly tying itself with PS4. (This is why Amazon's FireTV was branded as a TV streaming box, not a games console). There are 80k of the Rift out there now? It's 2 years old, so toddler age. I mean really VR should be learning to walk and talk by now.

Of course it does. As a substitute for phone calls for instance. And that's just an immediately obvious application. There are likely many more just waiting to be discovered, as has been the case for every major technological discovery ever.

Also, if it can take ten years to develop a stupid video game, it is more than likely for breakthrough technologies to take longer than a few years to develop (and even longer for them to mature), assuming they are even at the stage of inception yet.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I don't understand why people would downplay the anti social nature of VR. It's a core principle of the tech as it is developed right now to focus on the singular sensory experience of a single person and no one else.

And that's not inherently a bad thing either in moderation. Just like tucking yourself away reading for a weekend isn't a bad thing. It's anti social, but many people actually need that time out for themselves. I do too. I like to draw, and be in my own mindset and shut off everything else around me. VR is just another venue for this "alone time"

I agree with this.

The problem as with everything lies in moderation, and in that regard the designers of VR will have to consider ways to mitigate compulsive and addictive behaviour in their design (which they already are)

The problem is that the entire game industry is built around creating as addictive an experience as possible to maximize monetization methods. I can see VR ending up being very destructive for some because it's so compelling. Games have been and are already like this now for some without the enclosure and isolation of a VR setup.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Does anyone with a family see themselves using VR regularly while gaming?

 

[Seanspeed]

I understand, comparing it to other kinds of communication like those you said then yes, it will be a lot more real, but I mainly speak about direct social interaction, people with people on the same place. It will be good to see someone that you can't see directly in front of you, because it will simulate real life, but even though I am a failure at it (real life), I couldn't trade it like I heard some people say they could (for a simulated life). I'm not talking about people on this topic, just what I heard in my circle of people.

I get what you're saying. And sure, there will be no total replacement for real life interaction. At least not in the next couple hundred years or so! And I highly doubt anybody saying the whole 'goodbye real life' sort of sentiments are 100% serious about it. Its just potentially going to be an awesome new way to interact with others.

I don't understand why people would downplay the anti social nature of VR. It's a core principle of the tech as it is developed right now to focus on the singular sensory experience of a single person and no one else.

Because the bolded is absolutely incorrect.

Stating that VR is or isn't this or that is also often very short-sighted.

 

[James Coote]

People who have tried the DK2 all tend to say its a generation ahead of the DK1, not only because of the better resolution, but because of the head tracking and low persistence display. That was just a year's worth of progress. And there's all sorts of control schemes and motion devices and physical movement contraptions being researched and developed. Shit is moving man.

You're also assuming that VR has the life/development span of a human for some odd reason....?

As for VR not having non-gaming applications at home, that is a baffling comment. I cant even begin to understand your reasoning there. There are already a lot of non-gaming VR applications you can use right now, at home.

VR has a number of uses outside of the home / in the workplace - Drone piloting, Training simulations for dangerous environments, Visualising data. Those three areas alone could cover a whole range of industries, obvious ones being defence, aerospace, petrochemicals through to pharmaceuticals and architecture. For example, visualising geospatial data, you may be planning a new sewer under a major metropolitan area, and need to make sure it doesn't cut through any of the existing pipes, subways or building foundations.

Now your turn to name some examples of uses in average Joe's home. There are a lot of developers out there now who have Rifts in their homes, but it's telling that there are no stories of how those devs have thought "hey, instead of games, I could use this thing for XYZ instead!"

____

Edit:

Of course it does. As a substitute for phone calls for instance. And that's just an immediately obvious application. There are likely many more just waiting to be discovered, as has been the case for every major technological discovery ever.

Also, if it can take ten years to develop a stupid video game, it is more than likely for breakthrough technologies to take longer than a few years to develop (and even longer for them to mature), assuming they are even at the stage of inception yet.

That's the best you can come up with? Versus the convenience of making a skype call on my tablet (or phone) or with my Google glass, why would I strap on my VR headset? I mean home applications equivalent to the above industry applications where it adds real value with the tech as it is right now. Not vague, nebulous "someone will think of something"

 

[fabricated backlash]

Does anyone with a family see themselves using VR regularly while gaming?

Even with just a wife I can't see myself using it at all when she's around.

 

[the_korben]

I don't think it's a question of "in situation A you will be more/less social" or comparing it to reading a book/listening to music/watching TV. I think the bigger problem, if VR really takes off, is qualitative shift of how people in modern societies spend their time. Reading the newspaper on your smart phone is not really better or worse than reading the real thing. But when everyone has access to a smart phone you get the effect of people spending their time with it and shutting out others around them in the real world - be it only for a few seconds at a time. Some people cannot sit a the dining table with their family without checking their smart phone every minute.

That's the problem I see with VR. It will change how people like to spend their time, and it changes it in a way that moves away from natural human interactions involving your real sense of presence, sense of touch etc. Technology might be able to replicate the sensitivities to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from real life, but it will still be a _qualitative_ shift in how we actually interact with people every day behind the facade erected by a computer. Technology changes the environment and society. Whether you should anticipate and look forward to that change is a valid concern for every bit of technology out there.

 

[axisofweevils]

I agree. Basically, his statements echo what Miyamoto was saying.

 

[someguyinahat]

I'm worried that people actually see "social" as the be-all and end-all of gaming right now. A VR MMORPG? So I can get berated and called homophobic slurs with even more realism? Sign me the fuck up! /s

Does anyone with a family see themselves using VR regularly while gaming?

I have a family and most of my computer experiences are single-player. So sure, why not?

 

[Nipo]

VR has a number of uses outside of the home / in the workplace - Drone piloting, Training simulations for dangerous environments, Visualising data. Those three areas alone could cover a whole range of industries, obvious ones being defence, aerospace, petrochemicals through to pharmaceuticals and architecture. For example, visualising geospatial data, you may be planning a new sewer under a major metropolitan area, and need to make sure it doesn't cut through any of the existing pipes, subways or building foundations.

Now your turn to name some examples of uses in average Joe's home. There are a lot of developers out there now who have Rifts in their homes, but it's telling that there are no stories of how those devs have thought "hey, instead of games, I could use this thing for XYZ instead!"

In addition I have to imagine there are studies using virtual reality as exposure therapy for things like PTSD and anxiety.

Also if the technology matures into something that is easy to use it would be incredible for homebound seniors to be able to do things like watch their grand children's sports games, birthday parties, and other major events as if they were actually there.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Because the bolded is absolutely incorrect.

Stating that VR is or isn't this or that is also often very short-sighted.

Tell me what's incorrect about the very core concept of VR being the pure focus of a singular sensory sensation of a single participant? That's what even makes it appealing in the first place.
If you dilute this core principle, then why even pursue VR in the first place?

From there on, it's implementation, but the core is a very egoistical affair.

Again, nothing wrong with that in principle either, I just want to point out that it's dishonest to downplay that.

 

[Alx]

Even with just a wife I can't see myself using it at all when she's around.

I can understand that... Imagine coming home from work only to find your whole family with a box on their head, not even noticing you're back. "Honey I'm home ! Oh right she can't hear nor see me, maybe I should tweet it"

 

[Popnbake]

I don't understand why people would downplay the anti social nature of VR. It's a core principle of the tech as it is developed right now to focus on the singular sensory experience of a single person and no one else.

And that's not inherently a bad thing either in moderation. Just like tucking yourself away reading for a weekend isn't a bad thing. It's anti social, but many people actually need that time out for themselves. I do too. I like to draw, and be in my own mindset and shut off everything else around me. VR is just another venue for this "alone time"

The problem as with everything lies in moderation, and in that regard the designers of VR will have to consider ways to mitigate compulsive and addictive behaviour in their design (which they already are)

Still, posts in this thread have pointed out, gaming can already be an isolated experience.

You have people who use it as a means of escaping their real world environment and already we have news stories of parents who neglect their children because they become too enamored with MMORPGs.

I don't see VR gaming having anymore of a negative impact than what we are already capable of or currently show in society.

 

[Uno Venova]

He probably is, and he should know that there's nothing stopping it.

Stop it from what?

 

[JNT]

VR has a number of uses outside of the home / in the workplace - Drone piloting, Training simulations for dangerous environments, Visualising data. Those three areas alone could cover a whole range of industries, obvious ones being defence, aerospace, petrochemicals through to pharmaceuticals and architecture. For example, visualising geospatial data, you may be planning a new sewer under a major metropolitan area, and need to make sure it doesn't cut through any of the existing pipes, subways or building foundations.

Now your turn to name some examples of uses in average Joe's home. There are a lot of developers out there now who have Rifts in their homes, but it's telling that there are no stories of how those devs have thought "hey, instead of games, I could use this thing for XYZ instead!"

Phone calls, interior design, 3D movies, watching live performances from a spectator's point of view, travel, house hunting, medical examination. Combined with gaming that makes eight examples. And those are just immediately obvious.

Ubiquitous technologies twenty years from now will not be obvious to us now.

[EDIT]

That's the best you can come up with? Versus the convenience of making a skype call on my tablet (or phone) or with my Google glass, why would I strap on my VR headset? I mean home applications equivalent to the above industry applications where it adds real value with the tech as it is right now. Not vague, nebulous "someone will think of something"

What value phone calls hold to you personally is utterly irrelevant as I was replying to your completely dismissive claim that VR doesn't have any application outside of games in the home, which is demonstrably false. Frankly I find it very hard to come up with an application of smart phones inside the home that holds as much gravity as the ability to control drones from that same device.

 

[Kadayi]

Fox News Headline: VR too good and possibly addictive, are your kids at risk?

It'll happen sooner or later.

But none of us will be watching

 

[Alx]

I'm worried that people actually see "social" as the be-all and end-all of gaming right now.?

And I'm worried that when people hear "social interaction" they understand multiplayer gaming or social networks. Being social means interacting with people, real physical people if possible. When someone tells you "you should go out and socialize more", they don't mean browsing Facebook or playing Warcraft.

 

[adj_noun]

I can understand that... Imagine coming home from work only to find your whole family with a box on their head, not even noticing you're back.

Next year.

 

[FatboyTim]

As a fundamentally anti-social person, I'm overjoyed to see entertainment moving further and further away from shared social experiences.

 

[Exile20]

Wow this thread is a lot more civil than when miyamoto said it. Peope were so hostile towards him. Anyway I would like to try it but I wouldn't buy it.

 

[SystemBug]

I think he's right.

I am anti-social and sure its cool, but completely being shut off from the world? Sure that's going to have a greater effect on the human psyche than we think it is

 

[Interceptor]

Even with just a wife I can't see myself using it at all when she's around.

How would you know shes back with VR on?
Someone could break into your house and you wouldn't notice.

 

[Alx]

Next year.

Case in point. And that's only one year before Demolition Man.

 

[James Coote]

In addition I have to imagine there are studies using virtual reality as exposure therapy for things like PTSD and anxiety.

Also if the technology matures into something that is easy to use it would be incredible for homebound seniors to be able to do things like watch their grand children's sports games, birthday parties, and other major events as if they were actually there.

Certainly healthcare applications.

Spoiler

Nintendo QoL anyone?

With the elderly, it's part just repackaging the debate about virtual tourism. But also as much, the same as the making a phone call idea. It'd be easier to do that with existing technology, which offers a more convenient experience, whereas the quality gains from VR are negligible. If we get to the point where VR is as easy as slipping on a pair of Google glasses, then why not? Though as I said in another post, I think by that stage we're talking AR and VR devices having converged and gained widespread acceptability anyway.

 

[Exile20]

Even with just a wife I can't see myself using it at all when she's around.

I am with you. Even with headsets I have to keep on ear off and one on. Vr would get me divorced. Plus I have a kid I am still scared of the losing track of time thing.