A Different Kind of Reality
- Alessandro Pennini
- Jun 2, 2016
- 8 min read
[article originally written on November 5th, 2015. This version has additional links and references, as well as prices for each headset.]
It’s a loud, noisy room, thumping with music and full of people drinking, chatting, maybe awkwardly flirting too. It could be any club in Melbourne, but what has people intrigued is a set of plastic goggles and a stand. People gather around, slip the goggles over their head and then a smile breaks over their face. It happens enough to be a routine.
‘It really works’ says one of them, as they stare around the room, mouth agape. Many people leave and then I see them ten minutes later coming back for another go.
The goggles are marked with one word, Oculus VR - VR standing for Virtual Reality.
Oculus Rift is one of the first of the many virtual reality goggles about to hit the market. Samsung has their Gear VR, HTC has one called the Vive, Sony is throwing their hat into the ring next year with PlayStation VR and there are a host of imitators too. They all seem to be willing to put money down on virtual reality, some believing it could replace traditional screen experiences all together. There are questions as to whether VR works, who will deliver the most competent product or if there will be any suitable software available for it.
But the biggest question outside of this: how do you make consumers care about something that is so hard to describe? It’s something so completely separate from all our ideas of what computers are; no screens, keyboard or mouse.
What Stands In the Way?
Virtual Reality’s future relies on two things: the technology working and the acceptance of the public and it’s in this second part that VR faces its biggest battle yet.
Mainstream acceptance is the last thing standing between VR becoming a phenomenon. The hardware makes like Valve and Oculus have cracked most of the technical barriers that made unviable in the past but ultimately the fate of this technology lies in the consumers.
Virtual Reality was floated as an idea during the early 1990’s when some of the many tech companies decided it was time to make the science-fiction dreams of the past a reality. It seemed like the right time; we had the technology, we had the money and consumers were more tech savvy than ever thanks to the explosion of computers onto the market. And at one point, it seemed everyone was throwing their money at a VR experience. Even Nintendo, the video gaming juggernaut, put their foot in with a product called Virtual Boy – a commercial failure that they don’t mention today.
The devices that did make it to market were bulky, expensive and most of all, non-functioning. The technology wasn’t there yet. And for a long time, VR was a punch line for companies; a pipe dream of a product that just didn’t work, a symbol of the 1990's and the preoccupation with words like "cyber" and "multimedia".
And now, twenty years later, it all apparently works...So how does it work then? Most of these goggles work by projecting two images to two tiny screens inside the goggles. But you don’t see two images, you see one as your eyes cross the images over each other much in the same ways your eyes overlay images. It then tracks where your head is looking and sends new images to the goggles. And most VR headsets are light, comfort is important if you’re wearing a screen on your face.
Although the technology is important, it’s not entirely central to the experience of it all. It’s about understanding what this means and it can be difficult to explain what you can and can’t do: you can look around in 360 degrees and see a virtual world but in most VR experiences you can’t walk forward. You can bring your hands up to see them but you can’t use them - not yet anywhere. It’s like looking through a set of glasses to somewhere else. The limitations are there, yes, however it’s now about getting people on board to try this thing.
But as I watch people pick up the goggles at this event, it’s not all smiles. A few people seemed shaken or even revolted, the idea of looking into another virtual world seems to elicit a response of disgust. Some just don’t seem interested. And as one person slips on the goggles, their smile turns to pursed lips. They take the goggles off, shaken.
‘Gosh, I feel sick’
There's a number of problems with VR still to overcome; people who get motion-sick easily won't exactly feel at home with all this. Eyestrain can happen easily and with your eyes so close to a screen there's an effect where the lines become visible, similar to when you get too close to TV. The effect already has a name ‘screen-door’, similar to trying to look through a fine mesh. But the biggest problem that plagues VR is slow-down; all the connections and hardware create a kind of lag and it produces a type of motion sickness in users. This is known as latency and it’s one of the biggest bottlenecks on the technical side.
‘The body thinks that it is poisoned when this happens, it associates the delay with poisoning of a severe kind and produces the appropriate response’ says Stefan Greuter, head of RMIT’s Game Design Research Lab.
Other problems are things like refresh rates (how fast the screen can clear itself) and frame-rate (how fast the game is moving). We’re also going to be deciding how and where to use VR: I don’t know if I’d be entirely comfortable using the Samsung Gear VR on the tram or train as I’d be unable to be aware of my surroundings. There's been talk already of VR use on planes and whether or not it's socially acceptable - it's still early days but the questions are already being raised.
‘It’s not something that will replace computers – not for a long time. It might have an impact in some sectors. I mean, why use it when it is not more efficient?’ Stefan says and I'm inclined to agree with him. Companies and computers would need to adapt - 3D modelling could certainly find it easier to design in VR but the fidelity isn't there yet, nor is the support from VR.
VR could really take off in places where large screens are uneconomical like small houses and units. One sector where VR possibilities lie is education with a number of scenarios already being explored: virtual training for doctors and surgeons, simulated walk-throughs of historical places, education, technology. But we'll be the ones to decide how the technology is used - a tool is to be used after all.
Which Virtual Reality is Yours?
The push for Virtual Reality has begun in earnest; last month, Sony took to the stage in Paris with their PlayStation VR and began announcing games and with most consumer grade models hitting the markets next year, which one should you consider?
Gear VR: Samsung’s offering allows you to insert your smart phone into the front for a pseudo-virtual reality. Games or programs can be played right off your phone and with no cables, it allows for virtual reality on the go. AU $158.99
Oculus Rift: As the first company leading the charge, all of the other virtual reality headsets are riding the wave Oculus started. Their headsets are the ones most commonly seen and used. Their technology is reliable and they’ve already got companies working on programs and games.
AU $835.47 (US$599) (not inclusive of tax or shipping costs)
SteamVR/HTC Vive: Valve’s virtual reality headset, SteamVR, is different to many of the others in one important way; you can walk around. It has boundaries to ensure you don’t walk into your walls and furniture but it offers the fastest screen. You'll need 5mx5m of space and a way to manage the cables but Valve promises a more immersive, high quality VR experience.
AU $1,114.42 (US$799) (not inclusive of tax or shipping costs)
PlayStation VR: Sony’s headset is the most comfortable and well built, but will only be compatible with their PlayStation 4 system. It will fall to game developers to make interesting games for it, so the potential for programs and non-games related software isn’t as high as on open platforms like Oculus and SteamVR. However, Sony has a long history with great developers and we're already seeing some great games arriving for it - but this seems to be a strictly games-only affair.
AU $549
Google Cardboard: With this strange one, Google sends you a cardboard frame that you assemble and fit together and you slot your phone in the front. Holding it to your face allows for a budget VR experience. There are many different types and due to it being cardboard, it’s priced low.
AU $14.95
Just Another Virtual Reality?
I believe the consumers will be impressed by Virtual Reality - it works, everything is here and ready. There's enough money behind it to make it all work - Facebook, Microsoft, Sony. All the talk of Apple throwing their hat into the fray. But despite that, there's two things left.
The problem that virtual reality faces is two-fold: one, the cost. How much are these things going to be on launch? Early adopters are famous for forking out large amounts for first hand access to new products but this is technology that could cost upwards of thousands of dollars - you're not just buying a headset worth a cool grand, you're also paying for a computer to run it all. Some games want you to have two top-of-the-line graphics cards, in addition to a CPU of bleeding-edge quality, which easily puts your $2000-3000 dollars out of pocket. That's a lot of money to expect consumer to fork out for something that isn't even a new console but rather a peripheral; let's not forget that. Oculus, Playstation VR, the Vive - these are all peripherals, not new consoles unto themselves.
The second problem is games - all of the games I've seen look like shovelware. Lots of physics games, bow and arrow simulators, neat little things that could come out of a game jam. But VR is missing a big game, a killer app to get people into it. CD-ROM had things like Myst, The 7th Guest, network play had games like Doom and Quake really take advantage of online play. There's no big game but then why would you make a big game when there's no guarantee of an audience? It becomes a question of chicken and egg, does a game create an audience or does the audience warrant a game?
But for people to get on board, this process of exposing virtual reality to more and more people and getting them to understand that it’s real and full of potential is difficult.
Take TIME Magazine for instance. When they did a front page story on Virtual Reality (primarily the inventor of Oculus, Palmer Luckey), it featured Palmer on beach, floating in the air with a set of VR goggles on his face. It not impress many and noted video game journalist Jeff Gerstmann was one of many who voiced their displeasure.
“The tech works and the content is coming. But getting a wide audience to try, understand, and even embrace VR is already an uphill battle. When I look at this image, all I can think is ‘man, this whole thing is over before it even started’”
What’s so damaging about TIME’s cover is the reinforcement of the perception that VR is a type of shield people use to block out the world. It doesn’t challenge this idea at all and fails to mentions the fantastical possibilities we could be offering people. It fails to show this to people and instead makes it look like the same technology from the 90’s: overly idealistic and lacking professionalism. It’s about getting consumers to step up and try something completely and utterly different.
We're on the cusp of something amazing - regardless of what happens commercially, we've taken a huge step towards a new type of media. We're seeing a new thing emerge before us, unlike television or conventional computer games. We just need to give it a chance.
So at the event, I decide to give it a shot. I step up, slip the headset over my head and look into a virtual reality. The vision is blurry at times, shaky, half-formed like a glaucoma viewed world but it's working. It's working and I swear for a second, a few moments, I see the future.
Comments