The difference from 15 years ago is that the hardware is actually here and practical. We have the tracking and displays and they are actually really good. It really creates presence, there is 0 comparison between Oculus/Vive and VR experiences of yesterday, such as the Aladdin ride in Downtown Disney. Hell, HTC is literally pivoting the entire company to the Vive. HTC/Valve + Facebook + Sony + Samsung is a ton of top-notch engineering effort being put into just the first generation of devices/software.

See my comment above, but basically I imagine it'll create new media/experiences rather than replace. I don't think "floating monitors in space" will ever be compelling (maybe in AR), and I don't think "movies" as we think of them now will be practical (though I do think there is room for a more "theatre-like" approach).

If only I could find a way to convince my employer that this conference is related to the job at hand...

I think VR movies are a still a bit off, though I could be totally wrong. The reason I say that is because some of the fundamental theories used in making a movie are different in VR. Namely, you can't be certain you know where the "camera" is. :) Also, VR movies require a lot of new and developing camera hardware and editing software to come along. There are some cool things out now but my understanding is it is all very new and developing. Ultimately, I still buy in on VR movies, though. I am a believer in VR movies mainly because of my own experience watching short films in VR was super cool but also from watching videos of people curled up in the fetal position as they were being shown some scary movie in VR. It's visceral in a way that has not been achievable up until now.

I also think AR well be a widely adopted medium and there might become a pretty gray distinction after a while. I could imagine headsets or glasses that you can increase or decrease how much external light comes through. I can see doing things like checking email, facebook, etc. being done in AR but still allowing you to go about your normal routine like making coffee and breakfast or walking the dog. Seems far more compelling than looking at notifications on my watch.

Eventually, I also suspect that we will be "mainlining" these experiences and not be wearing headsets at all. Implanting some device that directly stimulates the necessary parts of the brain (or other parts of the body needed).

I definitely agree though. You can't just take what works in film and expect it to work in a VR film. It'll be interesting to see how filmmakers experiment with the medium as more and more start pushing what it can do.

That link is cool. I'll read it in depth. Thanks! I am excited by the possible shakeup in film theory caused by VR. I believe some really cool artistic innovations are going to come coupled with the technological ones.

The consensus at /r/vive is that VR porn is pretty terrible. You either deal with uncanny valley stuff for 'real' 3D scenes or just awkward camera placements and other issues for 360 movies. There's also a psychological effect of being 'too close to the action' or 'first person porn being unsexy' many have complained about.

I think the "tech will succeed because of porn" is a problematic mantra nowadays. I don't see facebook, Apple, etc succeeding because of porn. If anything, those platforms either outright block it or give a substandard porn experience. I don't think porn tells us anything nowadays.

Aren't you assuming that they would allow the wearer to change the camera position?

You could film a movie or design a game such that the camera location is fixed or on rails. You're more like an observer than a participant.

Eg. Chronos and Edge of Nowhere

The main issue I was thinking about was that you cannot say for sure where your audience is looking at any moment in time.

VR might stay as a somewhat specialized medium, but within the medium the possibilities are very compelling.

Why would it? It supplements my other recreational activities. The same way a Xbox didn't replace PC gaming or flat screen TV's didn't replace movies.

>I think VR is incredibly hyped, just as it was 15 years ago.

I own a Vive. Its kinda amazing. No, people won't be "locked in VR and refuse to leave" and other hysterics, but what we are able to do right now is exceptional. Its the most interesting thing I've bought in a long time. I see these breathless essays on HN and reddit about new cellphones or some new laptop that you have to squint to see the difference between the old and the new versions. I think some level of hype is justified here. If people can lose their shit over the annual new iphone or ipad then can certainly lose their shit over VR.

That said, there is a lot of hype, but that's part of being in a competitive marketplace full of marketers and advertisers. Arguably, if the hype was toned down then a lot of people interested in VR would have never heard of the Vive.

Hype/marketing/pr serves a purpose.

Maybe someone can chime in here, but doesn't the Hololens team already do some dev by wearing them in place of monitors at this point?

The one scenario I imagined working at that resolution that would really be helpful is if you were actually working on the the code in your current view? Then updating and reloading wouldn't require you to take the headset on and off.

But stories of the engineers not using regular monitors anymore seems a bit far fetched.

I tried the vive demo and was blown away (I could play the spice pirate trainer game until my body gave out) but the low resolution was noticeable (along with the screen door effect) and I had trouble reading text.

And being able to control your screen just by moving your head will be pretty crazy.