Perfect.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Former Valve VR dev: "I think VR is bad news"
- Thread starter Man
- Start date
Positional tracking of limbs is already a thing, and valve has a prototype that accomplishes eye and mouth tracking already. We hold weekly meetings in riftmax specifically because we can communicate in non-verbal ways.
These videos contend that you can have social experiences with the Rift/VR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgAJcmmlVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPjLBxYqoQ
They have a hell of a lot of fun. Just because all the current experiences being developed are not for people with multiple VR's doesn't mean that solidarity is the only experience possible.
They area actually helping develop these games that use the tech they are developing. (Control VR)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/controlvr/control-vr-motion-capture-for-vr-animation-and-mor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgAJcmmlVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPjLBxYqoQ
They have a hell of a lot of fun. Just because all the current experiences being developed are not for people with multiple VR's doesn't mean that solidarity is the only experience possible.
They area actually helping develop these games that use the tech they are developing. (Control VR)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/controlvr/control-vr-motion-capture-for-vr-animation-and-mor
I suggest checking this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgbycqb92c
This is with the old Kinect. We are not actually *that* far off having the ability to project ourselves, fully captured, into a 3d environment with a good degree of believability.
Of course there's more steps to make beyond this, but its a pretty damn good start.
Aaronrules380
Member
THe kinect is a completely different type of technology to stuff like the oculus though. And I'm not sure it'd be very safe to combine that type of motion tracking with a vr headset that stops you from seeing your surroundings
This guy helping us on HL2 with positional tracking. There are a number of limits to this technology, not least of which you are just projecting an image of your body, not actually doing any sort of skeletal tracking (because it's too slow). But you're absolutely correct - for projection of a body into VR, this is great tech.
I think dedicated mouth and eye tracking inside the VR headset (which, IMO, will slowly evolve into a full helmet you wear) will provide much better feedback. When you can smile, and your smile is communicated to others in VR, that'll be a great thing for non-verbal communication. Again, Valve already has protos in this field.
Not really. Oculus will ultimately use an inside-out positional tracking system that works on scattered IR that will behave very similarly to Kinect.
Imperfected
Member
But a bus is just a giant metal box people lock themselves in so they can avoid the reality of being outside. Some of them even use machines to create an artificial atmosphere inside the box because the people inside can't deal with being exposed to the real world!
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I'm sure it's different, but different doesn't automatically lead to superior to existing forms of gaming entertainment. I am excited about VR, but more as a really cool extension of my PC or something.
Aaronrules380
Member
I can see facial feedback, but will they track any other kind of nonverbal communication? And even if they could, you wouldn't be able to play the game and use it at the same time (Since you're still controlling the game with a controller and not your body). And if you do control the game with your body it severely limits gameplay possibilities and also poses safety issues with you moving around without being aware of your surroundings
There are quantifiable statistics from the Elite beta that those with VR headsets perform much better in the game than those without. As in, VR yields a tangible benefit for those playing.
That's generally true of every kind of game I've played, as well. From Mario Galaxy, to Sonic Colors, to F-Zero GX, to Half Life 2, to Zelda: Wind Waker, to Metroid Prime, to everything in between. There has yet to be a single game I've run across where the increased fidelity in camera control hasn't manifested in a superior gaming experience.
You are correct that different doesn't mean better. Luckily, this technology is both different and better.
I just finished saying that positional tracking of limbs is already a thing, in the very comment you're replying to. This all already exists.
Your point about "limiting gameplay possibilities" is nonsense. Our bodies offer far more inputs at far greater fidelity than a lump of plastic in our hands with 4 axises and 8 buttons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH3v2VrCZ9Q
Count the number of inputs necessary to mimic that sort of motion. You simply cannot have that level of input from a traditional controller.
also, your original point was that "we're not there yet, so why are we talking about this?" You realize that talking about this is precisely how we get "there," right?
Obviously its different tech, but its being used in conjunction with each other to provide the effect you see, which is pretty cool.
Oh yea, its obviously not the golden ticket going forward, but its just showing how this kind of stuff is entirely possible.
EventHorizon
Member
Yea this is going to happen. We are just at the start of VR becoming mainstream and already there are things like Kinect and Control VR. The tech in this space is just exploding and I doubt that it will take too long before there are extremely compelling social VR experiences. In fact the biggest limiting factor will be price, not the tech.
Price will fall as tech matures, though. VR Headsets already aren't that much, it's the positional tracking of limbs that is really expensive right now. $700 for two arms with control VR, for example.
But in 3 or so years, that tech should be affordable. VR is mainly going to be a seated experience at first, but there is already a high end market with the sort of full body tracked experiences people are waiting for. Games like Loading Human will provide the full experience if you want - with full leg tracking via omni-directional treadmills like the Omni and Virtualizer, positional tracked limbs with Sixense STEM, PrioVR, or ControlVR, and of course positionally tracked VR headsets.
veloxStrix
Banned
I'm not a big fan of VR.
Because...
I don't like things on my face..
and...
I just don't like it.
Because...
I don't like things on my face..
and...
I just don't like it.
Monocle
Member
I've heard that some places have these giant metal tubes for socially challenged people to travel vast distances without touching the ground. Some passengers go so far as to isolate themselves from their chambermates with headphones and eye masks. Surely this is a new extreme of tech-enabled social alienation. A sign of the times.
If there's a point in here, it's not really expanded upon to be meaningful. It's one thing to say VR in it's current state could be anti-social, but at it's end point? That's hard for me to see. VR at it's ultimate end point has the potential for allowing people to not only see others who are thousands of miles away, but also interact with them as if they were in the same room. Yes, this is still not the same as meeting someone in person in real life, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we can do today with phone calls, Skype, Facetime, etc.
Could the future of VR be more antisocial? Perhaps. But as far as potential applications and what developers choose to do with it as the tech evolves (hopefully over the next few decades), I can't comprehend how it doesn't at least have the potential to connect people much better than today, especially connecting people who live thousands of miles from one another.
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
Somewhat relevant: LUCKY DAY FOREVER
To me, VR-hype falls in the same category as "pharmatainment". No respect for human life whatsoever.
To me, VR-hype falls in the same category as "pharmatainment". No respect for human life whatsoever.
That's the most hyperbolic statement I've heard in, like, five weeks. Please explain further, though.
Imperfected
Member
AR is actually a different animal, and it's deeply amusing to me that the person cited in the OP is not as deeply concerned about that. AR, properly implemented, could easily become a mandatory part of first-world life that further acts as a stark divider between social strata. There could be circumstances in ten or twenty years where a person who doesn't have access to AR simply doesn't have the same "value" as an employee.
AR has the potential to become like the telephone: something that a person with any serious ambition in the first-world simply cannot opt out of. VR, by comparison, is more like motion pictures: it's likely to become ubiquitous and probably will even become a part of your work and education (like training and orientation videos are to movies), but not something that has the danger of creating an absolute requirement for societal function.
Well I am saying VR and AR could eventually be the same thing (Being able to switch between the two in one product). The point you bring up confuses me. Do companies today deny employment to someone due to not having a computer setup need to perform tasks at work? How about a truck needed to perform tasks on the job? I doubt very much that if a company needed AR to function they would deny employment based on that. Much more likely it would be provided for them just like every other piece of equipment in almost every job.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The differences in responses between now and when Miyamoto said this are amazing.
Hey, look another dude preserving Internet's fine tradition of attacking personally whoever he disagree with
Imperfected
Member
Think about it like this: can you secure most jobs in modern America without a telephone contact number or a solid line of credit?
Those aren't even things that help you do your job (in most cases, anyway), and sufficiently ubiquitous AR would be something that would help with virtually any job. My point is that VR is going to be largely an opt-in sort of deal, whereas AR likely is not going to be, any more than people can opt out of using telephones or motorized transportation. That means, at a bare minimum, it's likely to be one more hard break dividing the first-world from the third-world, and even urban environments from rural ones.
There are potentially huge social issues that could arise as a result of ubiquitous AR. The idea that someone could be morally or ethically opposed to developing VR but super excited to be working on AR is hilarious to me. (I don't think, for the record, that anyone should be morally opposed to either, it's just the selective application of sky-is-falling logic that's hilarious.)
When I'm playing a single player game, I don't want to be "accessible to my fellow man". I want to concentrate on the game, just like I want to concentrate on what I'm reading when I have a book in front of me. In either case, I'm not going to want to be interrupted and forced to carry on a conversation. Should we begin a movement to stamp out recreational reading next?
Most of this VR scaremongering bullshit lately seems to be written by die-hard extroverts. They keep pushing this idea that people spending time in solitary pursuits is some kind of insidious threat that we all need to be protected from. God help you if you're an introvert who not only wants but needs some "alone time" regularly in order to be happy. You'd enjoy tuning out the world for awhile and focusing on a game? Clearly you're part of the problem! SMH.
And you're doing any different?
The guy only said the guy lacks imagination and thus was ill-suited for the job. Would normally be a fair statement. Of course, the guy doesn't really lack imagination, he just doesn't 'like' the direction VR is headed, even though I'd say he's just another case of somebody overdramatizing the negative impacts of a new technology like has always happened before.
He also doesn't like online gaming either, so I'm really not sure its unfair to attack this guy's perspective. He's entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he's immune to criticism for it, either.
Disagree or criticize a personal posture != making a personal attack based on assumptions
Essentially. The endpoint is what we would call true AR, which is VR abstracted onto regular reality. True AR works by using cameras or some other technology to create a 3D model the environment around you, then, to place 3D objects into this 3D model, then to remove the bits of the 3D models that obscure due to objects being between the viewer and the model, and finally to project these new clipped models onto a thin transparent screen that the user wears. The end result is virtual objects appearing in real life space. Essentially, this is holograms as they've been imagined since the days of Star Wars.
This technology already exists, it's just very expensive, very slow, and not nearly good enough. Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jpWiTVR0GA
Ignoring the subject matter of the video, that is the ultimate end goal for all this technology. Eventually it's going to all converge. When people say that AR is not VR, and that they're completely different technologies I always cringe, because I understand the distinction they're making currently, but it's not quite right. AR, today, is little more than a floating HUD. Google Glass is not what AR is ultimately going to be. True AR is predicated on perfecting VR.
Practical applications of this stuff, can, one day, mean projecting yourself into someone else's livingroom, and from your view point you look like you're there, and to all your friends wearing their AR glasses, you are there as well. Think about Google's Project Tango and where it's going. These techs are sort of all building towards the same goal, which is a good 20 years away. The point of all this hype about VR is that this is the first step. There always needs to be a first step, and after many years of hype we're finally at that first step. As in, the tech finally works as advertised, even in the most rudimentary ways.
Ha, case in point.
I not totally agree with him, VR is not "anti-social", it's purely and simply dangerous.
There's already people drama which completly sync off real-life with their screen, the VR just can give them the opportunity to shutdown the reality they already quit, how long does it take to see on tv news the first dead because he forget to drink or eat ? It already happens with a simple screen, it will be far worse with VR. And even without talk of porn industry.
But in term of entertainment I don't see where's the bad news, or where is the "more anti-social", it's not less sociable to play WoW in VR and see your friend in the game world than play WoW without VR and talk to your friend on team speak. You have headset so without VR you are already out of reality if someone is calling you. Multiplayer games will not be sociable different.
And games where players has to be in the same room for "sociability" is just not compatible with VR tech anyway. Where's the point to play Mario Kart in VR ?
There's already people drama which completly sync off real-life with their screen, the VR just can give them the opportunity to shutdown the reality they already quit, how long does it take to see on tv news the first dead because he forget to drink or eat ? It already happens with a simple screen, it will be far worse with VR. And even without talk of porn industry.
But in term of entertainment I don't see where's the bad news, or where is the "more anti-social", it's not less sociable to play WoW in VR and see your friend in the game world than play WoW without VR and talk to your friend on team speak. You have headset so without VR you are already out of reality if someone is calling you. Multiplayer games will not be sociable different.
And games where players has to be in the same room for "sociability" is just not compatible with VR tech anyway. Where's the point to play Mario Kart in VR ?
I'm still failing to see how your comment was any different if you want to use this line of reasoning. You were coming to a judgement about this person as well, even if you used a few more words to say it.
If you wanted to attack his reasoning, you could have talked about how he was wrong to say the person lacks imagination with specifics or explain why this 'assumption' of his was wrong. But instead you just took the direct route of personally attacking this person without saying anything else about it.
Not threatened at all. I have no real desire for MMORPG shared universe stuff. Only as a novelty like Second Life. Play with it occasionally just to see the crazy fucked up shit that happens. Maybe true virtual reality that is indistinguishable from real life in every way will seduce all of us, but that is a long ways off. Like really long.
This is demonstrably untrue. There are asymmetrical games being demoed in VR right now that play off the ability for one player to see something different from the others in the room. There is a game, for example, where the VR player is disarming a bomb and the other players in the room have to read him out incredibly complex instructions from a manual they need to describe. In that situation, it's more like a board game.
Another demo has one player in VR being a giant monster ala King Kong fighting a bunch of other players using normal screens who are fighting him like a FPS.
Then there are cases of multiplayer VR games, like Couch Knights, where two people in the same room are expected to have two headsets.
It's not hard to imagine gameplay situations that can be designed around one player being in VR and everyone else using a conventional screen and gamepad. I mean, isn't that the point behind Nintendo's whole gamepad dealie?
Valve was pretty upfront about this in their VR presentation at Steam Dev Days. They talked about how once people taste it, they're going to want it and want it bad. If you had a VR environment where you could essentially enjoy your wildest fantasies, it's not hard to imagine how that could have some societal consequences.
I think Fabian already missed the boat, though. Go watch any crowd of people today and you'll see everyone engaged in what he might consider anti-social behavior. Glued to their smartphones or tablets, not engaging socially. Kids or even entire families texting each other while they're in the same room is a real thing. Technology has its pitfalls.
Good on him for objecting but it's not going to stop the train.
The problem I have with this line of thinking, is that we're already there:
And this is practically everyone these days. We joke about it at work, but it happens every single day at lunch, we'll all sit with people we know, but we'll barely say four words to each other over the entire hour.
I understand where he is coming from. Since it is the point of VR to immerse yourself into a new reality. I also wonder where this will lead us socially down the line. Ironic post above because this
I saw last night at the bars. If you weren't ordering a drink or waiting to order, you were on the phone. Main reason I begin to pull out of social media and tried to dial down on phone usage. Just from a social background I don't like where it's heading either
.
I saw last night at the bars. If you weren't ordering a drink or waiting to order, you were on the phone. Main reason I begin to pull out of social media and tried to dial down on phone usage. Just from a social background I don't like where it's heading either
Rajack
Member
Oh hey look another dude pretending some one telling the truth is actually attacking some one!
The man lacks imagination for how VR could be used in social (multiplayer) gaming. If he didn't he wouldn't have quit. His departure is a blessing because some one with the appropriate vision and imagination can now take over and make the magic happen. Even I can see the potential social implementations of VR. He can't, and that's a problem.
... not sure what are you arguing here, That is exactly what I did.. I never name called such person, nor I did a personal attack: Pointing out a behavior is not a personal attack.
I pointed out a very concrete action "He is making a personal attack based on assumptions"
disastermouse
Banned
And books were a lifesaver for me back in school where most socialization (before I moved to a new school early in my Junior year of high school) was very negative and harsh.
It got better, but I still kept my love of books.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I don't think this guy has to worry much, I'm not sure that VR will have the impact that many on here think it will.
I've been wrong before though.
I've been wrong before though.
Prevolition
Member
With increased immersion, social interaction with the virtual presence of a close friend through VR will cause the user to experience the same feeling of waking from a dream about that friend when reentering RL.
1st - The man works at Valve knowing how Valve recruitment process works: it is safer to assume: he probably has more imagination plus intelligence than the average.
2nd - There is a logical fallacy in your argument: Given you were right and he HAD NO IMAGINATION: he wouldn't be talking about it at all.... make the math please.
3rd - He obviously has a different moral posture regarding VF, one that its been shared by others, weather you like it or not: there is a critic process to get to that posture that implies the usage of imagination plus other rational process.
4rd - You could instead focusing on arguing the moral stance he is tanking instead of dismissing him right away as "nor worth it", but then that would actually require you to make an effort.
Fabian the article writer actually has an intriguing stance on VR that's quite different from the VR fear mongering that's been espoused throughout most of this thread.
He's specifically talking about VR MMOs, rather than VR as a whole. That the nature of MMOs as the VR end game is counter to the values of social interaction.
Let's give him some charity here - Lets assume that he realizes that VR will get to a level where you can signal to each other as well as you can in real life. That the quality of social communication isn't impeded by the technology.
So what is he worried about then? Perhaps the social dynamics that are mitigated by game-like environments? People obsessed about virtual loot and raids and all that jazz? And that in turn causes a new breed of tech users (an entire generation really) that cares more deeply about virtual worlds than our real world.
In that sense, he absolutely has a point - VR will be the natural medium from which to retreat from a dying world, to increase our apathy over the fate of the world that has supported us thus far.
But... in my opinion, it's also one of the most important mediums for helping save and preserve our world - instead of people seeking experiences in the real world and despoiling the real world, they gain the experience virtually.
Moreover, the ability to easily connect so richly to people all around the world, to experience with greater depth and engagement knowledge of our world (after all, not all VRMMOs will be WoW; the most important ones will probably look more like Second Life - with all its attendant creative freedoms and social network building) will likely enhance our appreciation of the diversity of the world and all life, even if it's something that's only experienced indirectly through a virtual medium.
Because the simple truth of it is that most of how we experience the world now is through virtual digital mediums (TV, internet, etc). And even with advanced VR, I don't imagine most people completely eschewing engagement in the real physical world - even if that engagement is mitigated with the use of AR tech - so there'll still be an innate understanding and engagement with reality. In that sense virtual reality is technology that helps to extend the paradigm of reality itself. Much of what we experience in there will be as real and practical as we experience here - and it'll increase the range of possibilities of what can be experienced, while reducing wear and tear on the planet itself.
He's specifically talking about VR MMOs, rather than VR as a whole. That the nature of MMOs as the VR end game is counter to the values of social interaction.
Let's give him some charity here - Lets assume that he realizes that VR will get to a level where you can signal to each other as well as you can in real life. That the quality of social communication isn't impeded by the technology.
So what is he worried about then? Perhaps the social dynamics that are mitigated by game-like environments? People obsessed about virtual loot and raids and all that jazz? And that in turn causes a new breed of tech users (an entire generation really) that cares more deeply about virtual worlds than our real world.
In that sense, he absolutely has a point - VR will be the natural medium from which to retreat from a dying world, to increase our apathy over the fate of the world that has supported us thus far.
But... in my opinion, it's also one of the most important mediums for helping save and preserve our world - instead of people seeking experiences in the real world and despoiling the real world, they gain the experience virtually.
Moreover, the ability to easily connect so richly to people all around the world, to experience with greater depth and engagement knowledge of our world (after all, not all VRMMOs will be WoW; the most important ones will probably look more like Second Life - with all its attendant creative freedoms and social network building) will likely enhance our appreciation of the diversity of the world and all life, even if it's something that's only experienced indirectly through a virtual medium.
Because the simple truth of it is that most of how we experience the world now is through virtual digital mediums (TV, internet, etc). And even with advanced VR, I don't imagine most people completely eschewing engagement in the real physical world - even if that engagement is mitigated with the use of AR tech - so there'll still be an innate understanding and engagement with reality. In that sense virtual reality is technology that helps to extend the paradigm of reality itself. Much of what we experience in there will be as real and practical as we experience here - and it'll increase the range of possibilities of what can be experienced, while reducing wear and tear on the planet itself.