For someone who played college-level cricket, this is a dream come true for me and the sensation of hitting the ball in the middle of the bat is mind blowing.
But, here's the kicker. In real world, If I had play 120 pitches (baseball equivalent), I'd have to wait for 4 hours. In VR it could be done in 30 minutes.
I've already lost 7 pounds and feel energetic.
I can't imagine how playing sports, music, concerts in the next 5 years is going to be in VR accelerating the skill-mastery process.
People who diss VR is the same kind who diss AI. Mixed Reality / AI will enhance productivity of everyone leaving the luddites far behind
Most people can’t exercise for four hours a day while ignoring their environment, effectively outside of their home.
Whereas if you had glasses that let you do AR thing, you could do that while keeping an eye on your kids or on what you’re cooking or while doing some chores or while brushing your teeth etc
What you described sounds very cool! But could you do it with young kids or a household to run?
The V in VR is there for a reason, the virtualization of experience is the core principle. The person you are replying to is using it to virtualize Cricket. It is replacing a real Cricket game with a virtual one. This has value because, I'm guessing, they haven't been able to play Cricket for a long time due to some set of constraints in their life. VR makes this former pastime available to them again because they don't have to leave their home, they don't need to buy or rent equipment (other than the headset and game), they don't need to find a local group, they don't need to schedule their time around a set date. All they have to do is put the headset on and jump in a match. Think hard about these differences. Ask yourself, what does it remind you of? Where has this happened before?
But you still didn’t address OP’s point. Immersive VR is like being out of the house. You can’t keep an eye on things.
Most people living regular lives have a limited “out of the house” time budget, and would like to spend a good chunk of it on in person experiences or errands or work.
Actually this analysis suggests work has the highest potential to bring in VR, as most people already budget 8-10 hours of “out of house” time for work, so VR isn’t competing with anything except the office environment.
There really is no guarantee for that. There have been a lot of techs supposed to disrupt everything just to flop miserably.
> in the next 5 years
I got a free vive in 2015 when they launched it in LA, promising a world wide revolution by 2016, 7 years later and still VR is nowhere to be seen. Just like fully autonomous teslas would be there "in two years" in 2012.
I'm very cautious with people promising revolutions "really soon". Crypto, VR, "AI", 3D TVs, 4D cinemas, self driving cars, it's all the same shit, rinse and repeat, "Bro! you gotta buy it now and invest everything you have in it RIGHT NOW! or you'll miss every opportunities!". All we get is the same as with everything else, very slow incremental evolutions, and that's when the tech doesn't straight up disappears
Until the software gets moving with something truly interesting vr is pretty much a gimmick at this point.
I hold out small hope that when Nintendo and maybe Sony get really serious about vr, then we’ll get to some truly fun, unique and new game mechanics / experiences.
I will not hold my breath. I tested the first (admittedly rudimentary) HMDs in the mid 1990s. VR was f-ing hot back in the days among those of us interested in "computer graphics". According to commentators, VR would have disrupted our lives over the next a few years. Here we are.
The only necessary tech that isn't driven by a large existing market are lenses. That's a pretty good deal for VR hardware, you just have to focus R&D money on one area while getting the rest practically for free (yes I know a lot of work goes into integrating those other components but it's nowhere near the same as having to develop the tech in the first place).
