I own a Vive and have not once crashed into a wall. The software knows where your physical boundaries are and warns you when you're too close by fading in a virtual wall (sort of looks like a blue mesh).

Take your uninformed nonsense elsewhere.

I run into walls and furniture all the time if I can use the system long enough without getting sick.

I posted a video of people running into walls. And there are lots of other videos of the same.

Are you implying it doesn't happen?

Also, how do you make something like Call of Duty when you're limited in your movement by walls?

> Also, how do you make something like Call of Duty when you're limited in your movement by walls?

You don't. Many existing game genres don't map well to VR in a direct port of existing mechanics.

From a game developer's perspective that is one thing that makes it exciting. It's a blue ocean of new design possibilities. I'm an optimistic person but I believe we'll find new designs that are equally compelling to the most popular games on 2d screens. Different games for different platforms.

Platforms like Virtuix and Infinadeck are interesting designs for this problem.

You posted literally the only video on the Internet where this happened, and it's because the girl was an idiot.

And you don't make Call of Duty for VR. VR experiences have limited movement, or you use teleportation to move around large spaces.

I take it you haven't looked at any of the other VR accident videos? People are recorded breaking things around them.

And with restricted movement, VR's use case becomes much more limited.

Face it - VR is a fundamentally flawed design.

It's one of those truly terrible tech ideas that needs to go away.

(AR on the other hand, does have potential...)

Right, like nobody has died while staring at their smartphone.

You're either an idiot or a troll.

You're the one claiming people don't perform destructive actions with VR.

If you want to defend this horribly dangerous product, feel free. But normal people will continue to call out such an awful product design.

Really, we need to get rid of VR.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. I recorded the video/gif you referenced in your first post. While my one friend did slam into a wall, she only did so because she ran. If you walk the system will stop you from crossing the play space boundaries (pass-through camera and virtual walls), and in the many, many demos I've given in the space you see up there in the video, not a single person has had any problems. And in case you hadn't noticed, VR is already a consumer product.

You also posted:

> VR will never make it as a consumer product. > > Ever.

Which it seems you are not qualified to give expert advice on. You might be right but you might get less downvotes if you adjust your tone a bit; Posting a single video and the jumping right to this conclusion also comes off as a bit lazy or something :-)

In the design world there's no real "qualification" on being a design expert. Anyone can get a job in that field given their talent.

Also, the downvotes are a natural result of all the people on this site that are invested in VR and want to see it succeed, so it's expected.

> In the design world there's no real "qualification" on being a design expert.

Yep, but predicting the future of VR citing only a single video doesn't come off as very convincing.

VR is already a consumer product. It is however very niche, and personally I expect it to remain so for a while yet.

I don't think liability is going to be a big problem though. People were destroying TVs with Wiis the whole time when it came out, but the Wii was still a huge consumer success.

I would say the bigger problems are to do with the fact that for room scale VR you need a dedicated space which lots of people simply don't have the room for. The aspect of disconnection from your environment is a problem, but I believe it's mainly how it affects social interaction that is problematic rather than issues to do with colliding with things. The chaperone system in the Vive is pretty good, and if you're playing a seated game in the Rift, you're not crashing into things anyway.

Personally I think that the most sensible arrangement for VR is coworking spaces with large fully tracked VR areas for groups and only enthusiasts would have them at home, but my understanding is that Vive and Rift are selling pretty well, so it's quite possible that I'm wrong on that.

I used first-gen VR. By this I mean I programmed using BodyElectric on Mac and SGI Onyx systems in the early 1990s.

There was a ton of innovation. But frame rates, even on half-million dollar hardware, had to be in the 30hz range. Knowing what we know now, there was no way for that technology to take off, even for those with very strong stomachs.

The minimal technology package to do a good job has only very recently been available for almost any money. I think it's too early to call it as a 'never'.

The critique you are responding to has nothing to do with computing power, or really any sort of linear extrapolation from where we are, yet you frame it as a question of frame rates and "minimal technology package"? I'm not sure I agree with the OP, but you're surely missing their point.

Thanks, allow me to amplify.

I used those early systems, definitely ones better than the Jaguar at least, and in the same year it was released. And, I'm saying anyone who thinks the Jaguar's failure means modern VR is doomed is missing some super basic things about the threshold at which VR is compelling.

And, I'm saying we are just over that threshold, sometimes, with some experiences, and that there was never a snowball's chance in hell that any kind of compelling VR experience could have been had in the early '90s.

If the Jaguar had been compelling, the liability issues would have been sorted, full stop.

Anecdotally, I've found even my 70+ year old father-in-law responds well to Chaperone bounds in the Vive, he 'gets' them immediately. A friend who is partially disabled is also successful at using the Vive, despite some mobility issues. None of that (or the attendant safety) matters, though, if the tech isn't compelling.

Oh my. http://gizmodo.com/5846133/the-best-ipod-prediction-ever-mad... comes to mind. Want to put money on that? Say, 40 million unit sales a year within a decade?

The possible failure of active VR (controlling something by walking around) due to space issues doesn't rule out VR as an immersive display technology. You can have one without the other.

I do agree that there are going to be liability issues with room-scale vr. I think someone's child or pet is going to be severely injured, because chaperone doesn't account for random objects walking into the play space. I don't think it's going to kill VR as a consumer product, though. The technology is so amazing, it's going to succeed despite those kinds of problems.

Have you tried the Vive?

He obviously hasn't. :)

Agreed. I was very VR skeptical until I tried the Vive last month. Now I'm convinced this is around the corner.

You're talking about room-scale VR, which I think you have confused with VR in general. Environmental awareness doesn't matter if you're sitting down and holding a controller.

Unless your cat is stalking you.

Lol, future technology prediction "responsive level design".

That's a really cool idea.

indiana jones(tm) trap dodge - sofa as fall pits, walls as dropping spikes and people around you as rolling boulders.