infoproto.1

	--- Defining The Current State Of VR Tech ---

The current high end VR headsets on PC are the Rift by Oculus and the Vive by HTC, with prices as low as 450 USD when on sale, 600 when not, and that require specs on par with a 600 USD desktop. The Sony PSVR is almost as high end but only works with a PS4 or PS4 Pro, and is overall also a little cheaper than PC VR.

First watch this video which doesn't show the headset technology but is a good visualization of what VR headsets are trying to achieve and mostly have achieved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-esx_KbJE

Then watch this presentation about what VR is and why it matters, by Michael Abrash who has had deep experience at Microsoft and Valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCthGEFwHw

Now we will summarize and expand upon that knowledge.

The goal of virtual reality is to provide artificial sensory data that replaces what the user would otherwise feel in real reality, such that to the brain, what is being perceived appears to be real. Up until now, consumer technology has not been good enough to present the necessary sensory data to the user in a way that tricks the brain. Up until recent years, it was immediately noticeable by someone using a headset that they were looking at a screen in front of their eyes. But today, because resolution, speed, processing power, lens technology, positional tracking technology, and other parts, have advanced to a good enough point, we are beginning to see headsets in which a high percentage of users truly do, for moments, feel that the visual and auditory inputs are from real sources rather than produced via screens and speakers, although for now it mostly is limited to sight and sound.

The feeling or state of mind that results from your perceptual system believing that it is spatially in a certain location is called "presence". You feel it all the time in real life, but have never felt it when the location is supposed to be virtual (in regular games you can feel immersed as if what's happening is very believable, but not as if your body is actually located in position inside the game's scenery). When we say "presence", it is often actually meant as presence [induced with VR], so keep that in mind.

If it feels like you've put yourself into a teleporter when you use VR, then you've achieved presence. If you don't feel like it was a "teleportation" then the VR software and hardware has failed to do its job and you may be using the wrong system and/or software, or are simply just not physiologically compatible (unlikely but possible). Getting presence based on visuals and audio at a minimal level is the holy grail that modern first gen VR has now achieved. Unfortunately though, this feeling, like any first feeling, is difficult to understand without having felt it already, so one needs to try a good VR experience to understand. Otherwise, it would be unwise to judge what VR really is.

Still, no one would say it's anywhere near perfect yet, but it is the first time where we can get a taste of it almost working the way we've wanted them to work for decades. More ultimately the end dream is for the technology to enable us, our physical being, to go anywhere, do anything, be anyone, and to be with anyone no matter how far apart we are. You know like in The Matrix, SAO, etc. We are not even close to that yet, but this new advancement is a huge step forward and the closest we've ever gotten.


	--- Video Examples ---

Visualization of someone being in VR environment using projection technology (the one from above):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-esx_KbJE

... and now using a VR headset(notice the similarities):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKmmFkc9uSE

Users' genuine first reactions to the technology, back when the early prototypes were just being made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJo12Hz_BVI

Playing an early remastering of HL2 in VR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RehCTRrWM0

Better example of a modern VR game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g48yzSY2lgg

A medical use of VR already being employed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlEjP_ZU4aw

An anime related usage of VR (groping involved):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXm_mbGCHAk


	--- Lowering Expectations ---

Before getting VR, one needs to understand that the technology is still very early and not great. Because the pixels are being magnified by a lens, you will often see the pixel grid arrangement itself and perceive a "screen door effect" or SDE, where it feels like you have a sort of physical filter over your vision. The FOV is also limited, meaning it feels like looking through a pair of goggles with the sides blocked off. The lens technology isn't that great either as they have many visual problems with clarity and artifacts. The lenses right now unfortunately have to be this way because of requirements in weight, cost, size, etc, until the optical technology is more advanced.

This video attempts to illustrate the SDE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9n9PBL6J14

The headsets can also be heavy, clunky, difficult to set up, sometimes likely to run into problems that need troubleshooting, and other painful things, not to mention slightly expensive, and requiring a PC itself worth 600 USD in hardware. And of course we don't have force feedback haptic suits yet either. Current VR is truly an early adopter affair. Even so, most still can not help but be impressed at how real things feel. Hopefully this has given you some realistic expectations to decide whether or not VR is right for you yet.

At least, all of the above is true for high-end PC VR. We'll get into non-PC VR in a bit. But first, here is some information to judge whether or not the next generation of hardware is worth waiting for, depending on your personal situation.


	--- Expectations For Future Products ---

In the future we will have more advanced systems. In the near-future what we can expect is that the second generation will come out in 2019. It should include much higher resolution to the point that the problems mentioned previously like SDE would be fixed (and good enough to replace our monitors, whereas today's headsets aren't high res enough to read text comfortably). The FOV should be higher. The form factor should be slightly slimmer and more comfortable. The performance and graphics should be orders of magnitude higher by utilizing eye tracking and foveated rendering. The software should be mature (expect most AAA games to be developed with a VR component at the very least, if not fully playable in VR). We should have good body tracking so you can see your legs in VR as well as other people's body movements. We should have features where we can easily scan our room and put it inside of VR to do stuff like mix the real world with the virtual. The setup should be a lot more simple and easy. These predictions are based on developments already happening and hardware already being manufactured. The high end headsets with all these attributes will be pretty expensive but not more than current high end headsets.

In the nearer future before second gen, coming 2018, what will launch are Microsoft partnered headsets from Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and possibly others. We do not expect them to be overall much better if at all than first gen VR headsets based on our current knowledge of them, but they will be cheaper (300-400 USD). In fact, we expect some of the cheaper ones to be worse in some ways than current gen headsets. If cost isn't a concern, do not wait for them.

We also expect another headset in partnership with Valve under their SteamVR license to come out from LG, making for two SteamVR licensed headsets on the market, the other being the HTC Vive. It looks to be improved compared to the Vive, but by how much, we don't know for sure, other than that it is unlikely it will be significantly better than the current tech, and we expect it to be just as expensive. It is likely that they are not worth waiting for in comparison to second gen headsets. Either wait for second gen or buy now (recent price cuts and constant sales have made current gen much easier on the wallet).


	--- On Non-PC VR ---

Console based VR exists with the Sony PSVR, and it is similar to what we've said about PC VR, with the difference being that the software is a bit different since some games aren't available on PC and some aren't available on console. And you're limited to less processing power. However it is cheaper, so it is a good way to get into VR, but otherwise we wouldn't recommend anyone get that over a PC VR headset because of the difference in capabilities, and we would highly recommend to try PC VR as a first experience because the probability of getting presence is a bit higher generally. It is a lot cheaper however if you already own a PS4 or PS4 Pro, and don't own a VR capable PC.

There exists headsets made of cheap Cardboard or plastic that you can slide your phone into. They are generally not recommended because they're cheap shit that doesn't have the goal of achieving presence. There can be exceptions however: the Samsung Gear VR and Google Daydream View are a step higher. But we do not recommend them either because, understandably due to their limited hardware, they don't provide good enough sensory data to make a very good majority of people feel like they're in another place. But sometimes for some people, they can still achieve that effect, just not often. So we don't recommend them, but if we're talking about having fun with cheap toys that you don't take seriously as VR, then the Gear VR or Daydream View is something you should absolutely buy if you have or are planning to buy one of these compatible smartphones (because the add-on cost is low, around 80-130 USD):

For Daydream View: Google Pixel and Pixel XL and these https://www.androidcentral.com/these-are-daydream-ready-phones-so-far
For Gear VR: Samsung Galaxy S8, S8+, S7, S7 edge, Note5, S6 edge+, S6, S6 edge

Other than that, there is another product category for VR, which is the standalone VR headset. What this means is a VR headset like the Rift or Vive, except with the compute contained on the headset itself, so you don't have to hook up to a computer or smartphone. HTC and Lenovo are developing ones in partnership with Google, which they call Daydream standalone headsets, and they will come out "soon". Oculus is developing a similar thing too. Samsung is too (may be in partnership with Oculus). Other companies probably also are. It remains to be seen when those others will come out. We expect the Google ones to not be recommendable unless you have money to waste and already have PC VR. Or you go outside a lot and have money to waste.

	--- Q&A ---

>I tried VR, but it didn't do anything for me, how come?
You probably tried a shitty cheap headset and/or bad software and setup. To get the best idea of what VR can currently do, you need to try an Oculus Rift or HTC Vive, and optimally with the help of an owner of the hardware. PSVR may also work but it isn't as good. An in-store demo can screw things up if the employees don't know what they're doing. Cardboard and phone based headsets are not great representations most of the time due to their limited hardware and software.

Now there is also a chance that your physiology simply isn't compatible (everyone has different head shapes, sizes, eyes, slightly different ways of perceiving things, etc). The headsets were designed to fit the majority of heads and eyes. Don't be too disappointed if it didn't work out for you, but you should be aware that it one day will when the designs mature.


>Isn't it just a screen on your face?
It's much more complicated. In VR HMDs (head mounted displays) used with PCs, like the Oculus Rift, there are actually two screens, one for each eye (this allows something called IPD adjustment which improves visuals for certain users). Then you have lenses that magnify and focus the light from the screens, in a way that makes it look physically the right size, shape, and distance so that the eyes see it as real. The screens are also modified with low persistence (eliminates motion blurring), have 90 Hz or more refresh rate (also eliminates motion blurring and flicker), and use global refresh (all pixels flash at the same time rather than roll down like a shutter). There are other ways to achieve the visuals without screens and lenses, like using laser projection with mirrors, but they are too expensive or not good enough for consumer VR use yet. Then you have optimized sensor systems to track the motion of the user's head in order to display the correct viewpoint and angle as the user moves and turns around. The processing hardware and software also plays a big part in making the low latency and high resolution frames possible. With all of that, design considerations to optimize for size, weight, durability, ergonomics, and cost need to be factored in. E.g. if you wanted lenses with almost perfect clarity for VR systems, they would cost hundreds to thousands, be the size of a small telescope, and weigh a few pounds, per eye. VR HMDs are nowhere near just a screen on your face, as many requirements in hardware and software need to be met in order to display visuals to the eyes that are accurate enough to trick the brain. Previous VR headsets in the 90's were orders of magnitude less advanced in terms of specs and also optimization to meet modern demands.


>How come we're hailing HMDs with motion tracking as new when we had them decades ago, isn't this kind of just a glorified 3D TV, Power Glove, Kinect, and Wii, all of which failed?
The problem was always a combination of quality, latency, size, weight and price of VR headsets, rather than the general idea itself of mounting 3D displays on your head with motion tracking. The tech has advanced and it is generally agreed upon and observed (by people who have tried) that today's consumer VR headsets are beginning to get things right, such that the idea we originally had for the tech so many years ago is finally working out how we intended. The Kinect, Wii, etc, did not use good enough technology (e.g. the motion tracking was nowhere near the sub-mm accuracy requirement of today's VR headsets), nor were they used in the context of VR (even Virtual Boy was not motion sensing to account for where your head was facing). Rather, those technologies tried to shoehorn in features that were not needed much for their existing platforms (e.g. traditional games on flatscreen TVs didn't benefit from motion control).
http://www.roadtovr.com/the-3-most-common-arguments-against-vr-and-why-theyre-wrong/


>Motion controllers suck though, why would I want them?
Motion controllers were never good because they firstly were not good enough on a technological level but more importantly they weren't used well with the applications companies tried using them for (games on flat screens). Now because we have VR, we need a better way to control things, because the keyboard and mouse is not very suitable for instance. If you're playing a VR FPS without motion controllers, what you would perceive is a gun stuck to your face with artificial hands coming out of your body. The only thing that does is break immersion. If you want to actually feel like you are the hero himself slaying monsters, you can use motion controllers and you will actually feel like you're holding a sword, albeit an almost weightless sword, because you have something in your hand that you're gripping, and the motion tracking is good enough that you see the sword right there in the place of the controller almost like someone replaced it with a hologram (previous motion controllers did not have good enough tracking to make this possible, so with those, you might see the holographic sword stutter and drift all over the place, not in your hand). Now developers still have to find ways to make it fun, but they're already coming up with good interactive design that's a lot better than what was done with motion controllers on flat TV gaming.


>I thought VR was dead though? Why isn't VR a runaway success like everyone said it would be?
It isn't dead, but it isn't "mainstream" levels of alive either. It will take time, as for any technology in history, to gain mainstream adoption (many millions of users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle
And unlike ""VR"" in the 90's that ""failed"" (http://www.roadtovr.com/the-3-most-common-arguments-against-vr-and-why-theyre-wrong/), today's market is seeing consistent growth and consumer adoption a year after release, not decline.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42331217


>But the hype was so big just a short while ago, where did that go?
It is normal for the hype in the mainstream public conversation to die down a bit initially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle
However, if you go talk to anyone who actually has tried VR, they will almost always tell you that they at least like VR and are looking forward to future advancements, if not already use it themselves.


>But is it really good enough right now? It's not wireless, it doesn't connect to your brain, you can't feel things like gunshots on your body, and I heard about problems with resolution being low and stuff.
It's true, there are many limitations with the current technology, but technology is advancing. It's the reason why current VR is possible and worth it. It's worth it because, despite all the limitations, despite relatively low resolution, and despite other early adopter pains, it still stimulates in the brain a sense of visuals and sound that is extremely close enough to being able to trick most users that those input data are real, not made up. Just because you can't simulate full haptics (yet) doesn't mean simulating other major senses isn't worth it.


>If technology is advancing so much and the current generation is so necessary, then why aren't we seeing more news and developments in the tech?
We are. You probably weren't paying attention. Already, we're prototyping hardware for next gen. We will have wireless headsets. We will have much higher resolution. We will have tracking technology that doesn't require us to mount things in our rooms. We will have almost augmented reality capabilities in VR headsets (called mixed reality, augmented VR, or other terms which different people have tried to shill). We will have other things that will make the experience a lot better compared to today's headsets.


>But it's expensive, isn't that a problem?
It is somewhat expensive, but that's not a big problem. It only means that VR currently is a niche product. Rightly so, since the technology and software still has some kinks to work out for a smooth mainstream consumer UX, and the companies themselves are fine with this beginning number of sales (current sales numbers have met their expectations). That doesn't mean it's not worth it or that it can't be successful. Many products thrive and live fully well in small, niche, specialist markets. As time goes on, the tech will mature, and it will get cheaper and better, which means mainstream adoption will go up in time. When we'll hit mainstream numbers (many millions of units owned) is arguable, but there is very little doubt from those who keep up with the news that it will happen. VR is also probably less expensive than you expect. Have a look at the buying guide to get an idea of the prices these days (including discounts and sales for different locations). It can effectively cost as little as 450 USD new for a PC VR headset including the controllers, and may cost as little as 400 USD or less by 2018 when Microsoft releases their VR headsets.


>Is it not true that AR is a lot better though?
AR and VR are different sides of the same coin. You can already see from some of the videos that the only difference between AR and VR is that in VR you have a background environment, and in AR you make the same background environment transparent to the real world. Even the technology is very similar. If you can display perfect visuals layered on top of the real world, what's stopping you from using the headset to display perfect visuals layered on top of the real world except covering all parts of the display so that none are left transparent? The problem is that good AR display systems don't exist yet in a consumer form. But when you they do, you're pretty much going to be getting the same device for VR. The reality is a bit more complicated though, so for a short while AR devices may not be able to do VR, but the end-game is basically for any VR headset to do AR, and any AR headset to do VR. There is also a region between AR and VR where it's in the middle of the spectrum. E.g. you take a 3D scan of your real environment, display it in a VR headset, and then layer elements into that environment. It's kind of AR, but not really AR. Nor is it VR since it displays parts of the real world to you. This middle section of the spectrum is called different things by different people. We've heard mixed reality, augmented VR, cinematic reality, holographic, and others before. Mixed reality seems to stick the most. Extended reality (XR) is used to define the entire spectrum so you can call AR and VR headsets all XR devices.


>But AR is still a lot more attractive as an idea than VR isn't it?
Depends on the use-case. What AR doesn't include in its definition is a complete transportation to fantasy worlds you want to jump into and adventure through. AR also doesn't include layering completely different textures on your walls so that it looks like you're living in a chocolate house. That chocolate house idea isn't AR, nor is it VR either. It's what most call mixed reality. Augmented reality is layering virtual elements on top of the real environment or background, not replacing the entire background itself. Replacing everything including the background and foreground objects with things that aren't there is VR. The middle of the spectrum, mixed reality, isn't AR or VR, but a bit of both. And extended reality or XR is used the define the entire spectrum itself, so any AR and VR device is simply an XR device.


>Why buy now when I can wait a few years for next gen products?
Don't get us wrong, the tech is awesome, but it's understandably a very "early adopter" product. Wait if you would like, but at least know that right now it's the best time to get into early adopter first gen VR as the prices have come down a bit in the middle of the generation cycle and content has also matured a bit. It will  be sometime in 2019 for true second gen Vive/Rift. Hold out if you can wait, buy now if you really want VR and are fine with the limitations. But understand that it's not garbage either, it's actually probably the best novelty you'll ever experience of any product that has ever been dissed as "gimmicky" before.


>Doesn't it get you motion sick?
This was true for previous ""VR"" headsets many years ago, but now it does not inherently get anyone sick because of advancements in tech. However, FPS games and others that let you use a joystick or similar controls to move around can get a certain portion of the population motion sick. A certain portion of those people will be able to gain tolerance/immunity to the effect by continuously exposing themselves to it. The rest will not. The percentage of those who will never be immune is relatively small, but it still presents a problem. To get around this, developers have and are continuously coming up with many solutions to movement in VR, like teleportation,  or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHzCmfuJYa4
Or for example, even more impressive is how the zero gravity movement in Lone Echo doesn't get many people sick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggZvKL3pArc). The feedback on this game from users already has revealed that it works, but how they did it is somewhat a topic for speculation.


>What causes the motion sickness?
It is unknown to the scientific community how it exactly works in the brain, but what has been observed is that people generally get motion sick when they detect conflicting sensory inputs between their eyes and their vestibular system. The vestibular system resides in the deep parts of the ears and detects acceleration, and it is not yet something that can be stimulated well with consumer technology. Therefore, when the eyes tell you that you moving through space, but your vestibular system tells you you're not actually moving, it can cause nausea. Fortunately, many people are immune to this, many who aren't can gain immunity, and a small but sizable percentage can not, but techniques are being developed so that no one gets sick while still letting you move around in crazy ways using VR.


>Teleportation looks limiting and I don't want to simply stand around playing the game, how come we're still using it so much?
Some of the more unique ideas to solve locomotion and motion sickness are being perfected and worked out, and actually many games give you those options already, but in the meantime, there are games that use teleportation in a way that makes sense and is fun. E.g. in Robo Recall, teleportation is a technological capability or superpower that you have in the story, and the enemy AI accounts for your behavior. In The Unspoken, you're a mage and teleportation is a spell. In both games, the gameplay is complex enough for other forms of locomotion to not be needed. Just because they don't look exciting in videos doesn't mean they aren't exciting when you're actually playing the game yourself. Try the games, and don't read a book by its cover.


>Isn't the low adoption because there aren't any games?
Not true, there are many good VR games, people just don't know how good they are because they haven't heard of them or haven't played them. Plus companies haven't nailed the marketing yet either. Look in our list of content to get an idea of the content.

It's true however that right now, big AAA games like Skyrim are in low numbers, but even Skyrim and Fallout 4 is being ported to VR, so we should be seeing full AAA games later on releasing with VR compatibility at launch or shortly after. Resident Evil is another big franchise and it was designed from the start to be VR compatible.


>How can VR succeed if it tires the user so much with standing and moving? I don't want to play platformers in first person.
Many people who use VR actually like that it tires them, as it is like a form of exercise that you don't consider exercise. It's similar to why people like playing DDR, except with VR the intensity can greatly vary depending on the game, and you have a lot of variation in what gameplay you can get. You can also be lazy and play platformers and others in third person with VR. Those games exist. Some first person games also give you options to play even if you're sitting down in a chair, but they may not advertise it much.


>What's the point of playing a VR game in third person?
VR is always "first person" in the sense that you still perceive the game world as one where you're sometimes standing or hovering in. Only the game itself is played differently and the difference in gameplay is what really matters when saying a VR game is "third person". If you imagine a game where you're standing in a forest above a mouse controlling her movements, then it is actually like you're standing in real life in a forest, standing above a mouse, and you're using buttons to direct where the mouse goes. So the advantage to having any traditional third person game in VR is to get that sense of spatial presence in the game world, to get that immersion, to feel like you've been to those same places that the protagonist has gone to, and to feel like you've actually met the protagonist in person yourself rather than see them in footage disconnected from your physical surroundings. If you like current VR, but don't like when a 3rd person VR game releases, then one would have to question if you truly like non-VR 3rd person games in the first place, or if you even understand what VR does.


>Can it be less antisocial? I don't want to be blocked off from people.
It's true that VR gets you very immersed but it's hardly antisocial. It's actually more social than other technologies. 90% of gaming and using our smartphones is shutting ourselves off from others. Because we can have our bodies in VR, and spatial voice positioning, it's possible to understand and interact with people better in VR, and feel like you're interacting with someone in real life even though they might be playing miles away from you. If you want more social ability in the room you're in, just wear your headphones a bit looser. It's really not so hard to interact with people while wearing a VR headset, and as far as applications that go out of their way to increase social interaction with people in your vicinity, there are some, like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, but then again, how many games and applications do you use everyday on your phone, for example, where it requires another person in the same room?


>Can people even see what you're playing?
The games display what you're seeing in your headset on the monitor. It basically just mirrors the view there in a window, so no performance is lost. You can also mirror audio if you want to output to speakers at the same time.


>Isn't it unsafe since you're essentially blindfolding yourself? What if you trip over a wire or chair or something?
There is a system in place where you can draw boundaries in 3D space so that when you walk too far in VR, a grid pops up to warn you. This boundary system prevents most accidents, as does just keeping stuff out of your play space. Your body also learns over time to move around and avoid the cable, although you can still step on it sometimes. Also make sure to keep the wrist straps on so you don't throw the controllers out of your hands. Just do what makes sense and you should be fine. It has been a year already and there have been no serious injuries caused by VR yet. Although there have been some minor bumps and broken monitors. If you're not stupid, that won't happen to you.


>What if someone sneaks up on you with a baseball bat while you're immersed in VR?
If you use VR appropriately in your own home and use common sense, that won't happen.


>Isn't having screens that close to your eyes bad for you?
It has been a year already and there have been no reports of adverse effects. The screens physically being close to your eyes also matters little, as the light they give off is bent by the lenses so that in terms of physics, the plane of focus is 2m away, rather than 30mm away when without the lenses, so when the light reaches the eye, it is already bent such that it is virtually coming from 2m away, not 30mm. Since your eyes are focusing at a far distance, there is less chance for eye strain and damage.


>Didn't Facebook kill VR?
No. In fact, it strengthened VR and gave it legitimacy. Facebook has not only invested billions, but has influenced others to also invest seriously in the space. It is actually a near direct result of Facebook acquiring Oculus that Valve went to HTC so soon in order to create the HTC Vive. Now we have two high quality competing products, and the competition makes the market better overall.


>Doesn't Facebook require you to login to your account in order to use VR, and spy on you while putting ads in your face?
No. One does not need a Facebook account in order to use VR or to use the Oculus Rift. They also do not beam VR ads in your face. No one has detected any suspicious spying activity from their VR software over the course of the last year since the products have released, and the software does not make users broadcast all their lives on some virtual wall so that they willingly give away their information. Will Facebook one day decide to do something suspicious related to VR? Maybe, probably. But they don't seem interested yet in milking their current niche VR user base so it doesn't really matter right now. Google, Microsoft, and other big companies that are working on selling VR are also as suspect as Facebook, and at least for now, they aren't doing anything suspicious, but may one day in the future. You should be wary, but you shouldn't let extreme paranoia cloud your mind either, obviously.

Update: Google is experimenting with VR ads.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/google-unveils-advr-an-experimental-area-120-project-for-advertising-in-vr/