Tuesday, February 23, 2016
A Case Against Virtual Reality
Hooke: Virtual Reality is emerging from its awkward teenage years (the 80’s and 90’s) and is ready for primetime. Billons of dollars have already been invested in VR with trillions more on the sidelines. Blue Chips, celebrities, Hollywood studios, and huge tech conglomerates are placing big bets. Individuals are quitting their day jobs to start new websites, blogs, podcasts, meet-ups, conferences, plug-ins, engines, you name it just to keep in step with VR. It is a forgone conclusion that Virtual Reality is real and is going to be massive; to suggest otherwise is met with incredulity and name-calling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Taking the plunge into the virtual world is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people for various reasons. Price, susceptibility to motion sickness, powerhouse computer requirement, etc.. However, by leading the article by saying we've been here before, the author immediately dates himself a decade in the past. Yes, there has been virtual reality devices before, but nothing on the same tier as the Oculus Rift or PSVR. The article cites the fact that VR is a stationary experience, and states that to be a detriment, but computers were once stationary too, and people still bought them every year as the tech improved, because what the computer provided us outweighed the cons of being wired in. VR is much the same. Yes, VR isn't a wireless augmentation of our lives yet, but by getting your foot in the door you get to experience a revolution in technology if you can get past some wires. It won't fill subway cars yet, simply because it can't. By stating that as a fault of the concept rather than the tech, the author argues something no one can argue back at. Yes, VR has wires right now and isn't portable and isn't cheap. But it's exciting, and getting the next generation of minds excited to create. In my mind, that's enough.
We keep having these articles that talk about a cool new technology in terms of how great it will be for advertising. Can we just not. This one was talking about how social media wasn't a big thing until people realized they could advertise on it. I shutter at the thought of finally getting good VR, with an aesthetically pretty shell, only to be inundated with advertisements. I think VR is really interesting and super cool, but not really for use like everyday not the subway and in the streets. It’s always been more of an at home kind of thing because with the size of the goggles it’s just very obvious that you're not present and you look kind of ridiculous. Until they make it more sleek, I don’t think it’s really going to kick off. They also still have to fix the problems with moving in the VR while you are sitting at your desk because I’ve heard that a lot of people start to get sick because they’re body knows they aren't moving but their eyes think they are. I think we still have quite a while before VR completely takes of and please let it not be an advertising platform.
While some of the claims made by Mattana in this article may be stretches, I am definitely in agreement with his overall sentiment for the most part, which seems to be two fold. First, there is the very understandable (at least, I think) sentiment that VR is scary. It seems to be what all of the futuristic movies have been warning us about: humans plugged into their devices 24/7, more concerned with a constructed world than the actual reality around them. I am not a fan of VR. I see the educational benefits, I’m skeptical of the entertainment value, and I’m concerned by the possibility of it being the next iteration of the smart phone.
The second part of Mattana’s argument is that the tech industry, while boasting about all the potential of VR, is going about it all wrong. From my view, this is a good thing. If companies were marketing VR in a way that I felt the temptation of the forbidden fruit, I’d be far more concerned. I think Mattana has a point with his argument that VR is still too clunky to really catch-on, but if the wow factor is what the companies claim, this might not matter. People are willing to adapt in weird ways sometimes. Here’s to hoping we aren’t all walking around with screens strapped to our faces in 20 years.
I do not agree with this article. Many of the claims reminds me of arguments against the computer when it was first coming out. Sure, VR might not be revolutionary as of this moment, but it takes a lot of time to figure out how to build something that has never been done before. One of the author's arguments against virtual reality was how many cables and wires it has. This is pretty much the argument against the computer, when one computer would take up full rooms and still be extremely slow. Then over time the computer got less bulky and easier to use, just like a lot of currently developing technology will do. Another gripe I have with this article is that it considers 3d printing a “failed” technology. Sure, not everyone has a 3d printer lying around, but that doesn’t mean it’s not successful. It has been a huge help to the medical industry, especially when it comes to making customized, cheap limbs for amputees. So I would just wait on making a judgment on new technology. The kinks are still being worked out.
Post a Comment