-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Former Valve VR dev: "I think VR is bad news"
- Thread starter Man
- Start date
chrominance
Member
I get where the author is going with his argument, but since he also says he finds the current state of online gaming limiting in the same way, it kind of seems like he doesn't want to be in game development in general. I mean, unless he's looking for a place that specializes in couch co-op (Nintendo?).
Based on his comments on AR, though, he sounds more like a hardware tech guy than a game dev guy, interested more in general applications than strictly entertainment ones. If so, more power to him. That said, though VR does seem somewhat anti-social to me, I don't think the inevitable conclusion is a society full of people completely isolated in real life and interacting socially only through VR worlds. But talk to me in 20 years, when I'm old enough to shake my old-man cane at all the awful, newfangled things the youngsters are doing, and I may change my tone.
Based on his comments on AR, though, he sounds more like a hardware tech guy than a game dev guy, interested more in general applications than strictly entertainment ones. If so, more power to him. That said, though VR does seem somewhat anti-social to me, I don't think the inevitable conclusion is a society full of people completely isolated in real life and interacting socially only through VR worlds. But talk to me in 20 years, when I'm old enough to shake my old-man cane at all the awful, newfangled things the youngsters are doing, and I may change my tone.
Chû Totoro
Member
I don't like online multiplayer because it's less fun than local multiplayer and regarding VR I've already said I don't want to play in a "bubble"... even if this "bubble" is connected with other "bubbles".
It's a great tech, I'm going to try it. I'll probably end up buying it for a few awesome experiences but it'll never be what I play the most.
It's a great tech, I'm going to try it. I'll probably end up buying it for a few awesome experiences but it'll never be what I play the most.
James Coote
Neo Member
Things like interior design and house hunting are once a year at most type activities. (Both those make more sense with AR than VR anyway).
You have to put yourself in the shoes of people who don't care about games and who aren't early adopters. Think about those people in your life who fit that description, then try to pitch Oculus Rift to them and see how far you get!
This technology is not like a TV, where every house has one. Nor a mobile, which is in every pocket. It's like an Xbox, which although it does all this extra stuff like TV streaming, and playing DVDs ("it's your complete home entertainment solution"), realistically, is only really bought by gamers.
Quite a few people are defending the anti-social aspects of VR by equating their degree with that of current technology (headphones, for example). I suppose this is a fair argument, but only if one takes no issue with the latter. Call me traditional, but I do agree that these can be very anti-social if not used in careful moderation.
Of course, one can create a hypothetical situation where such peripherals are no longer perceived as obstructions, but we haven't quite reached that "saturation point" yet. The majority of us still use face-to-face interaction as our dominant medium of communication, and some technologies already cut off big parts of that, e.g. proxemics. Of course, reducing variables can be a good thing, but there are many situations where misunderstanding and frustration is the common result.
Just as a quick example off the top of my head, sarcastic or jocular comments on fora such as NeoGAF are prone to being misinterpreted as serious, and this is because many of the paralinguistic cues that signal sarcasm or humour are lost in simple text. There is no doubt that different media of communication will lead to different outcomes of communication. The question here is whether we, in our current context, can integrate these different forms painlessly. I believe that this will be incredibly difficult without a major restructuring first taking place, considering that we're already experiencing issues with similar technology that are of a "lesser" degree than the full-on VR we envision.
Of course, one can create a hypothetical situation where such peripherals are no longer perceived as obstructions, but we haven't quite reached that "saturation point" yet. The majority of us still use face-to-face interaction as our dominant medium of communication, and some technologies already cut off big parts of that, e.g. proxemics. Of course, reducing variables can be a good thing, but there are many situations where misunderstanding and frustration is the common result.
Just as a quick example off the top of my head, sarcastic or jocular comments on fora such as NeoGAF are prone to being misinterpreted as serious, and this is because many of the paralinguistic cues that signal sarcasm or humour are lost in simple text. There is no doubt that different media of communication will lead to different outcomes of communication. The question here is whether we, in our current context, can integrate these different forms painlessly. I believe that this will be incredibly difficult without a major restructuring first taking place, considering that we're already experiencing issues with similar technology that are of a "lesser" degree than the full-on VR we envision.
originalself
Neo Member
While vr addiction is certainly plausible, lets not forget people die occasionally from playing now. Addictive personalities will over do anything. I think vr will be safe for most people.
I didn't know we necessarily had one agreed 'end goal'.
The end-goal of VR doesn't necessarily have to be some all-encompassing alternate reality that people submerge into and never return from.
It might as easily end up being a vehicle for predominantly, temporary 20 minute joyrides and the like.
I don't think a professional working in the VR space has to devote themselves to the former. There's all kinds of things one could work on that might be more agreeable to people with a less engrossing vision of VR.
The end-goal of VR doesn't necessarily have to be some all-encompassing alternate reality that people submerge into and never return from.
It might as easily end up being a vehicle for predominantly, temporary 20 minute joyrides and the like.
I don't think a professional working in the VR space has to devote themselves to the former. There's all kinds of things one could work on that might be more agreeable to people with a less engrossing vision of VR.
I would argue that the idea that something is wrong with you if you're not regularly interacting with other humans is true, but not just because your alone, it's considered wrong cause your alone and doing nothing but enjoying yourself. If VR developed experiences that allowed people to widen their knowledge on a subject that has it's uses, like house building, then I think it would be a far more powerful educational tool than anything we've had yet. They always are saying first hand experience is best, now that can become a reality for more subjects and students that before.
How many people would like to try house building, car repair, how does learning about monks in China sounds, cooking with famous chef's, how about taking a space shuttle to the.moon or command a submarine to study fish as the depths of the ocean?
Pretty much none of that is going to happen anytime soon, but I suddenly started thinking of when those Wii ideas threads were popular here. Most of the good stuff never happened regardless if the technology did eventually arrive.
How many people would like to try house building, car repair, how does learning about monks in China sounds, cooking with famous chef's, how about taking a space shuttle to the.moon or command a submarine to study fish as the depths of the ocean?
Pretty much none of that is going to happen anytime soon, but I suddenly started thinking of when those Wii ideas threads were popular here. Most of the good stuff never happened regardless if the technology did eventually arrive.
It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.
I think people can do whatever they want and he thinks the end-goal of what he perceives to be a common goal is bad, so he doesn't want to continue working on this. He points out that it's a very interesting field.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Well, VR removes you from your world. I guess if you live alone, that's cool.. if you have a family or partner... not so cool.
I get what the guy is saying.. and I respect why he doesn't want to do it anymore. I also get why some can't wait for the tech.
Some people fear the loss of human interaction.
I get what the guy is saying.. and I respect why he doesn't want to do it anymore. I also get why some can't wait for the tech.
Some people fear the loss of human interaction.
GravityMan
Member
Fabian's points are valid, but I'm not sure I buy his overall premise that "VR is bad news".
To me, VR, just like most other kinds of physical and virtual technologies, is just a tool. How/when/where that tool is used depends on the person using it. Often, the only limitation is the person's own imagination.
If someone gets so addicted to VR that they're spending damn near all day with their Oculus on (and the few times it's off they're craving the next time it goes back on), then yes there's a good chance that their real-life social life -- if they had one to begin with -- will be adversely affected. There is greater risk they will be socially awkward/inept which can make it more difficult to land or keep a job, date a woman/man, or even just being outside in public (bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc.) with or without friends. In short, connecting with others. We see this already with people who are too obsessed with Facebook, or single-player video games. The problem here isn't VR...it's the person. Sure, VR brings the possibility of interacting with other people in virtual space in unprecedented ways (and that would be awesome), but that's still not a sufficient substitute for real-life interactions - much of which is non-verbal.
On the other hand, a person could greatly enjoy and be passionate about VR but still have enough self-discipline to police himself and not dedicate nearly all day to it. Chances are, that person will be just fine socially in the real world. He'll have no more difficulty with dating, work, etc. than the average joe. Hell, VR might even make him or her a more interesting person to hang out with.
I think VR will carve out a very nice-sized niche, but I feel that the "anti-social" (a term that is often misused, BTW) stigma of the tech may play a factor in preventing it from becoming huge commercially.
To me, VR, just like most other kinds of physical and virtual technologies, is just a tool. How/when/where that tool is used depends on the person using it. Often, the only limitation is the person's own imagination.
If someone gets so addicted to VR that they're spending damn near all day with their Oculus on (and the few times it's off they're craving the next time it goes back on), then yes there's a good chance that their real-life social life -- if they had one to begin with -- will be adversely affected. There is greater risk they will be socially awkward/inept which can make it more difficult to land or keep a job, date a woman/man, or even just being outside in public (bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc.) with or without friends. In short, connecting with others. We see this already with people who are too obsessed with Facebook, or single-player video games. The problem here isn't VR...it's the person. Sure, VR brings the possibility of interacting with other people in virtual space in unprecedented ways (and that would be awesome), but that's still not a sufficient substitute for real-life interactions - much of which is non-verbal.
On the other hand, a person could greatly enjoy and be passionate about VR but still have enough self-discipline to police himself and not dedicate nearly all day to it. Chances are, that person will be just fine socially in the real world. He'll have no more difficulty with dating, work, etc. than the average joe. Hell, VR might even make him or her a more interesting person to hang out with.
I think VR will carve out a very nice-sized niche, but I feel that the "anti-social" (a term that is often misused, BTW) stigma of the tech may play a factor in preventing it from becoming huge commercially.
Sakura
Member
While I understand your thoughts, your post seems to be about your own fears of what VR could potentially do, rather than actually explaining how the situation described in the OP is so much more anti-social than what we can already have. I don't ever believe VR will be the dominant platform, with all game devs making VR games instead or something. Don't you think a lot of families or other people with roommates etc would feel the same as you? Isolated VR experiences will never supersede current TV gaming because there will always be a significant number of people who don't want to be so "anti-social".
I don't understand why you think games like Goat Simulator or Mario Kart or whatever would disappear. As long as there are a significant number of people that enjoy those kind of gaming experiences those games will continue to exist. VR will never replace all your games big budget or otherwise, unless it at some point becomes actual VR, and not just screens strapped to your face.
Exactly, sounds great to have
I can't believe people worrying about anti-social issues and discredit the VR tech based on that. It that's to worry about, the internet and mobile phones should really not be around too since they are also anti social, making face to face communication not really necessary.
People shouldn't have been reading books all these years either.. so antisocial.
Just seems like a dumb thing to complain about especially when you can make social experiences using it with online multiplayer and such.
Hell maybe someday you can join virtual tours using some sort of camera setup in places around the world and ask people questions on the other side.. how is that antisocial?
Again, your personal preference about the potential household applications does not take away from the fact that they are household applications. You could be right that these applications won't move units, but we don't know where the technology is heading. IBM didn't believe in personal computing for instance, and sure enough, at the time there weren't many compelling arguments to pursue such a venture. Hell, personal computers in its infancy didn't have much application outside of gaming either, yet Apple didn't have much trouble pitching its products to consumers. Since then a lot of things have happened in the PC space, but I really doubt any of those early companies had a clear vision back then that even remotely resembles what we have now. The same could happen to VR.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Baffling. Can't say I agree with it all.
Schweinehund
Member
I agree with him, but it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to play a solo experience, online with others or use the device at all.
Good post.
The, lets tell everybody what they need and should do for human interaction needs to at least slow down a bit. Let's us see the quality of the experience first.
This "anti-social" talk of VR is total BS. Security and safety reasons aside, this is a non-issue for VR, or any other entertainment media. It is hardly any different from what everyone is doing in this forum already. The lack of direct visual feedback is the only notable difference, which can be solved with a number of ways. Chalking this up as a "social issue" is a complete and utter joke.
Indeed. Share, like, recommend, tell everyone your opinion, discuss. There's no end to it.
Plato was referring to poetry (and art) in the context of straying from aletheia (truth) and arete (virtue). Not straying from social interaction. In fact, art in classical antiquity was a social experience in many ways.
Indeed. Share, like, recommend, tell everyone your opinion, discuss. There's no end to it.
Plato was referring to poetry (and art) in the context of straying from aletheia (truth) and arete (virtue). Not straying from social interaction. In fact, art in classical antiquity was a social experience in many ways.
synce
Member
If this guy's definition of social is twitter and facebook I don't think he understands the word, or at least I don't agree with his definition of it. Those sites are little more than ego boosters. Kids today don't even know how to talk on the phone, everything must be texted, presumably so they can respond with the perfect response whenever they feel like it. VR won't do any damage that hasn't already been done.
I thought I recognised the name in the OP from somewhere, the guy has a really excellent blog I used to read (well worth looking up for his series on optimisation, and a detailed explanation graphics pipeline). He used to be active in the demo scene also. I can kinda agree with where he's coming from about VR. VR is fundamentally anti-social in terms of your immediate environment (and the people within it), it's actively making you disengage from it. Compare that to AR which, like the name suggests, augments the physical world around you, actively engaging you with it (i.e. your environment is integral to the experience).
People are comparing VR to reading a book or playing a game with headphones on, and saying they're equally anti-social. I'm not sure I buy into that.
For example, when the weather's good I like to spend lunch sitting in the park reading while I have earphones in listening to music. Occasionally someone might stop in front of the bench, in my periphery, and I'll glance up. They might nod or smile, or say hello, comment on the fine weather we're having, ask about the book, or whatever. At that point I physically have to pop out an earphone and they have to repeat themselves, but that's about all.
At home I might be playing some battlefield with headphones on, intensely focused on it, but if the mrs walks into the room I can't help but notice that (be it from seeing her in my periphery, or a shadow changing, or the light in the room being different - all sorts of visual cues). From there it's just a glance again to get an idea of whether she's talking to me or busy with something else, her mood etc.
In both those situations if you change the book/game for a VR headset you lose that subtle awareness of your surroundings, and for that person to engage with you they must initiate it in a weirdly abrupt way (basically yell at you or physically prompt you to make their presence known).
In that way you can't even say a VR headset is just like headphones for your eyes, you can't 'yell' through the headset to get someone's visual attention.
I'm labouring the point - VR headsets uniquely monopolise your vision like nothing else. Saying that you can add a button (or even a keybind) to allow see-through mode (or to switch to a camera) isn't a perfect solution to that problem either. Hitting a button is an elective process, you need to have a reason to press it, and aside from curiosity or paranoia, you're back to the situation of being aurally or physically prompted.
I guess that's a great argument for using speakers rather than headphones with VR, however it's still a valid point that VR headsets isolate you from your immediate environment (and the social cues within it) more than any other form of visual media. That strongly ties into the original post's concern about advertising - VR is essentially a monopoly on your eyeballs - making it the ultimate advertising platform. Short of turning it off when an advert appears (or hitting the pass-through button) you have to look at the ad because it can fill your entire field of view. You cannot just look away. That is a worrying prospect for consumers and no doubt tantalizing for advertisers.
I'm not saying VR is a horrible idea, I think it can be a powerful way to experience games or visualise other simulations, and I expect it will have a bunch of other useful applications yet to be found also. However I really don't want to see it become the primary means of consuming content, whether it's games or movies or whatever, because of the way it so completely divorces your vision from your environment. Perhaps a form of VR-within-AR might work better, and that idea of external cameras could allow the VR surface to lay 'in' your view of your environment somehow, like some 3D monolith forever 3 feet in front of you. My god, it's full of stars?
People are comparing VR to reading a book or playing a game with headphones on, and saying they're equally anti-social. I'm not sure I buy into that.
For example, when the weather's good I like to spend lunch sitting in the park reading while I have earphones in listening to music. Occasionally someone might stop in front of the bench, in my periphery, and I'll glance up. They might nod or smile, or say hello, comment on the fine weather we're having, ask about the book, or whatever. At that point I physically have to pop out an earphone and they have to repeat themselves, but that's about all.
At home I might be playing some battlefield with headphones on, intensely focused on it, but if the mrs walks into the room I can't help but notice that (be it from seeing her in my periphery, or a shadow changing, or the light in the room being different - all sorts of visual cues). From there it's just a glance again to get an idea of whether she's talking to me or busy with something else, her mood etc.
In both those situations if you change the book/game for a VR headset you lose that subtle awareness of your surroundings, and for that person to engage with you they must initiate it in a weirdly abrupt way (basically yell at you or physically prompt you to make their presence known).
In that way you can't even say a VR headset is just like headphones for your eyes, you can't 'yell' through the headset to get someone's visual attention.
I'm labouring the point - VR headsets uniquely monopolise your vision like nothing else. Saying that you can add a button (or even a keybind) to allow see-through mode (or to switch to a camera) isn't a perfect solution to that problem either. Hitting a button is an elective process, you need to have a reason to press it, and aside from curiosity or paranoia, you're back to the situation of being aurally or physically prompted.
I guess that's a great argument for using speakers rather than headphones with VR, however it's still a valid point that VR headsets isolate you from your immediate environment (and the social cues within it) more than any other form of visual media. That strongly ties into the original post's concern about advertising - VR is essentially a monopoly on your eyeballs - making it the ultimate advertising platform. Short of turning it off when an advert appears (or hitting the pass-through button) you have to look at the ad because it can fill your entire field of view. You cannot just look away. That is a worrying prospect for consumers and no doubt tantalizing for advertisers.
I'm not saying VR is a horrible idea, I think it can be a powerful way to experience games or visualise other simulations, and I expect it will have a bunch of other useful applications yet to be found also. However I really don't want to see it become the primary means of consuming content, whether it's games or movies or whatever, because of the way it so completely divorces your vision from your environment. Perhaps a form of VR-within-AR might work better, and that idea of external cameras could allow the VR surface to lay 'in' your view of your environment somehow, like some 3D monolith forever 3 feet in front of you. My god, it's full of stars?
astroturfing
Member
i don't get how VR is supposedly more anti-social than current single player experiences.
does it really matter if i play Elder Scrolls on a tv in a dark room, or have a VR set on my head?
also i think VR might actually do the opposite for me personally, i might have more energy during the day to be social at work (hospital with thousands of people), if i know that in the evening when i have some time to play i can REALLY immerse myself into a virtual world for a little while. i think it will be an even better stress reliever than current ways to play. so the next day i will wake up less stressed, with more energy to be positive and social at work
i say bring on the healing power of VR!
does it really matter if i play Elder Scrolls on a tv in a dark room, or have a VR set on my head?
also i think VR might actually do the opposite for me personally, i might have more energy during the day to be social at work (hospital with thousands of people), if i know that in the evening when i have some time to play i can REALLY immerse myself into a virtual world for a little while. i think it will be an even better stress reliever than current ways to play. so the next day i will wake up less stressed, with more energy to be positive and social at work
i say bring on the healing power of VR!This whole multitasking deal in these discussions irks me. Just what sort of gaming, reading and watching do people do while having a conversation, or watching TV is beyond me. There is a limit to how focused a mind can be, and I know this planet isn't filled with cerebral prodigies.
We've seen the prototypes, they do what they're meant to, not paying attention to secondary functions. Even sound hasn't been given much attention other than "grab a pair of headphones". Who's to say there won't be safety features? I can totally see voice recognition being used on a VR headset.
There are thoughtful people working on these devices, they won't release a mass market product that is potentially dangerous.
People act as if the thing is about to be released.
Finally, people in this industry care about social interaction and healthy human relationships? What a joke. Safety is the context that the discussion should take place in. Today's global society is the most individualistic, anti-social, anti-communal in the history of humanity.
Lambda Pie
Banned
being anti-social is the least of VR problems. the moment a fat nerd dies of heart attack playing a horror game... BAM! you can expect that the brutal and relentless backlash from mainstream media will kill VR to the mass consumer in seconds.
ValkyrUser
Member
I don't think It'll be as bad as he makes it out to be. VR can't really provide all the sensations of real life that most humans naturally crave. Now if someone made a real life Holodeck, THEN I would be worried.
MoGamesXNA
Unconfirmed Member
.
It's stealth advertisement. How could we be so blind?
TetraGenesis
Member
Bring it onnnnn, baby.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Does this mean moms will start forming "VR clubs" to trade their best VR experiences with a particular game/app?
Actually, that sounds pretty cool.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
It sounds like any video game connected to the internet is an MMO anymore. Hehehe
Time will tell. Indeed. Is he not payed well?
Time will tell. Indeed. Is he not payed well?
Dirtyshubb
Member
There has been some great points in favour for vr already but I wanted to tackle one criticism about it being anti social with people in the room with you. everyone seems to forget is that morpheus has the ability to stream what the player sees directly to the TV so everyone else can participate and watch on, and unlike oculus demonstrations it isn't split in half so viewing is easier.
So it's easy to imagine games being tailored if need be to be enjoyable to watch such as party games, horror games, boxing ect. The possibilities are huge so I can see it really taking off if launched with some compelling software, look at what wii sports did for the wii!
Every fibre of my being hopes vr become mainstream, it brings so many possibilities for not only gaming but every day life too.
So it's easy to imagine games being tailored if need be to be enjoyable to watch such as party games, horror games, boxing ect. The possibilities are huge so I can see it really taking off if launched with some compelling software, look at what wii sports did for the wii!
Every fibre of my being hopes vr become mainstream, it brings so many possibilities for not only gaming but every day life too.
plagiarize
Banned
So I see there are a lot of people in this thread continuing the fallacy that when your playing VR in the same room as someone else that you are some how totally cut off from them?
They might have to try a little harder to get your attention, but that is it.
I've got a friend coming over later and we're going to play some VR games trading back and forth. And he has his own rift.
It's nonsense.
They might have to try a little harder to get your attention, but that is it.
I've got a friend coming over later and we're going to play some VR games trading back and forth. And he has his own rift.
It's nonsense.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
This is actually a very real and immediate concern. Someone is going to die, because of heart attack or seizing. If it gets enough media attention, VR will be permanently stigmatized as that taboo technology that's "too realistic" and dangerous. That would really cripple its market penetration, even if everything else goes well.
ScriptedReality
Member
he just reignited my ideas and hopes of a dot hack vr mmo lol
Already happens without VR, example:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/05/korean-girl-starved-online-game
Will probably make it more common though if the tech is good enough.
That is extremely likely yes. In a way, Facebook introducing the technology can be a good thing. When VR is known first and foremost for non-gaming applications, it will be much more acceptable. That won't make it any less dangerous, but incidents like that won't kill it.
Like I said before, the discussions needs to be about safety.
Well, VR can immerse you in a different, more "cerebral" way. It fools your mind and body. That's something that can't be done to the same degree with conventional displays. It's not just about forgetting the world outside, but even more so about being thoroughly immersed. Who's to say that sudden jump in blood pressure when you're being blasted off an airlock into the vacuum won't be enough to kill someone.
blankempathy
Member
Perfect duplicate? Living in a bubble that is a fake world even if is with other people isnt exactly socializing. As someone whos spent a lot of time in mmos nothing beats spending time in real life with friends. Video game worlds are too scripted, too perfect. Nothing unexpected really happens. If life were like that itd be completely boring.
Similar threads
- Locked