Also note that this might not be a one way street. They might use brain machine interfaces to stimulate your brain according to the ads you are watching. E.g. you watch ads for beer and you get the feeling of beer taste on your mouth or you watch ads for bread and you get the smell of freshly baked bread, etc. Or when you are in a store, the implant will give you a serotonin kick when you foveate on a specific product (whose manufacturer paid for that kick). etc.

It's creepy af. But 20 years ago when you told someone about the privacy intrusions of smartphones, people would've been creeped out as well so I'm pessimist and saying it will come.

This tech has the potential to distort market forces to a significant degree. Somewhat similar to how cigarettes are harmful to the user, but the user wants to smoke them anyway due to the products impact on the brain.

New products may not get investment because the user is hopelessly attached to the old product through some a reward signal hardwired into their brain.

On the other hand, learning and studying could feel awesome with such tech. And mind altering substances might not be a requirement.

As we get more powerful tech, I think we should work towards ways of bending the tech toward positive outcomes.

Hopefully folks like yourself have a seat at the table when it comes time to define "positive outcomes."

Ctrl labs decode signal from your arm, no brain stimulation yet, but who knows what Facebook wants to do

Okay, Black Mirror. (mind you, I don't think the suspicion is unwarranted, especially when it comes to Facebook.) Optimistically though, targted TMS or some other brain affecting technology, could treat depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, anxiety, autism, or any other number of mental maladies. (To be clear, this is very much in the realm of science fiction, TMS is nowhere near this.)

I imagine this'll take an Oculus route: awesome tech bought by Facebook with an initial "I'm not giving Facebook my data!" backlash, followed by high-quality products that edge more and more into the market by actually being pretty good.

Hopefully (or not).

I agree. I actually started using FB again (to a small extent) because I bought an Oculus Go, then an Oculus Quest. The Quest is such a good product and some of the material produced for it is so very good, that it is something I am going to use.

Oculus is still such a niche product though.

Most hardcore gamers I know (not many to be fair) think it's a gimmick.

From what I've heard dizziness is still a problem (motion sickness).

I for one just want some AR thing I can easily read text on.

The thing about VR is that pretty much anyone that's actually tried it will say it's too compelling to not have some measure of success. I don't think VR/AR/XR will ever be as ubiquitous a platform as smartphones are today (which seems to be what Facebook is banking on, owning the next big computing platform), but it won't go away, and it's not just a gimmick either. It's a new class of experience that we are still figuring out how to even do and produce content for, and which will broaden its appeal as the prices come down - but it still remains to be seen if it'll ever be entirely mainstream either.

Yeah. The smartphone was such huge crazy success that we keep trying to figure what will be next thing. Maybe there won't ever be, at least in our lifetimes, something that compares to it.

The Roomba is a successful product, (10% of the market in the US, most sold vacuum clearer). But it's not what we thought the market for robots at home would be. I remember Gates perpetually betting on robotics as the next hit.

Same for Apple Watch, not as ubiquitous as a iPhones, but pretty popular.

If everything seems like a failure compared to smartphones, maybe we shouldn't use it as a benchmark.

I’d say it’s too inconvenient atm to be widespread. It takes a whole room away from you and there is a cord tangle. Even with wireless headsets, moving requires teleportation or else a very small play area. Finally, the headsets add weight and setup time, which makes it less fun for long sessions

Its here to stay, but the motion problem isn’t solvable in the near future

The Quest solves some of this, at the cost of scene fidelity.

I bought a quest and a valve index around the same time, one for untethered casual and social gaming in the living room, the other for hardcore gaming in the bedroom office. The quest is currently gathering dust, the index is used daily for several hours playing racing sims (with a cockpit and a motion simulator the experience is just unbelievably fun). The seated experience is great, but teleportation is boring as hell, and smooth locomotion just doesn't feel right when you're standing still (I can race an F1 car at 200mph no problem, but skyrim VR is the only time I've ever felt motion sickness).

I'm a bachelor so I have a huge empty space in my living room. When I first got the quest I could walk around freely in a 12x12 area, and the first thought that went through my mind was "holy shit, if I could just keep walking this would be incredible. Like, I never want to stop incredible". If they can ever sort out the treadmills, or it becomes common to open up large gymnasiums for group VR sessions, I could see it becoming way more interesting.

FWIW I spend 4+ hours a day in VR on most days and host VR parties for friends fairly regularly. Dizziness and motion sickness can and are still a problem in some situations (lower-quality apps, some locomotion schemes, and overworking your graphics card come to mind), but I'd definitely not say it's a problem for "VR" as a whole anymore since it's easily avoidable by having both good hardware and good software.

I find most reporting done on VR that claims dizziness is a problem is often repeated by journalists that haven't actually tried VR themselves. If you haven't checked it out, I'd recommend finding a friend with a headset and going to town on it for a few hours. :)

And don't worry, AR is (probably) coming eventually.

I'm very susceptible to dizziness from ocular lab. I've tried (I believe) every Oculus product that's been publicly released. The Quest essentially eliminated dizziness entirely from me (although I've heard there are some games that still struggle, a roller coaster simulation has come up a few times when talking to people who've tried more). My uncle, who is not a gamer and is in his 70s, is seriously considering buying one as he has a friend who got one as a gift, tried it, and loved it.

Anecdotally, it seems like the Quest beautifully handles experiences designed for VR, and has a bit less success with improving media designed for traditional consumption (watching movies, which seems like it could be a phenomenal experience, still just makes me want to watch on a TV).

These days, simulator sickness in VR is usually a result of the game, not of the headset itself. Roller coaster simulators are sickness-inducing almost by definition, since the entire point of such applications is to simulate crazy, intense motion without actually moving the user at all in real life. For anyone without an iron stomach, an experience like that is almost guaranteed to make you sick regardless of the quality of the headset you're using.

Have any of the people you mention tried it? VR is awesome. A subset of users suffer from motion sickness, and it doesn't help that much of the hardware has a low framerate (I would recommend 90fps at the very least if you're prone to motion sickness, and of course avoid the type of activities that would give you motion sickness IRL). But from most experiences not having motion at all, VR games have been moving towards having motion at least as an option because most regular users prefer motion. For me, it felt slightly disorienting for a couple of weeks and then never again.

I tried it multiple times and it really depends on the game. If there's an opportunity to move fast (faster than in real life) then I definitely feel sickness. The same for friends who tried it too.

>Have any of the people you mention tried it? VR is awesome

Not the GP, but in my experience, yes, they have. Problem is none of the games we want to play are available. It's a neat sideshow, but the headset gets stored away soon enough and we go back to the games we want to play.

What games would you like to play in VR that aren't available? If you give examples, others here might be able to point you in the direction of something similar. :)

I think it's more nuanced than that. To me, the question is "what games do I want to play in VR, and would they pull me away from games I want to play which don't lend themselves to VR?"

I have yet to see a VR game I would pour a ton of time into. Right now I'm playing WoW, Zelda: Link's Awakening, and Mario Maker. Perhaps someday I'll be able to play a game like WoW in VR, but we're not there yet. Zelda and MM wouldn't play well in VR. So where's the "killer app" (ugh)? I imagine it will come, but I haven't seen it yet, which is why my headset is collecting dust.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for VR (I was an early adopter and even toyed around with a dev lot for a while). Problem currently is that the library of games I want to play just doesn't exist.

I guess different strokes for differnet folks. Games that put me in another world in VR at some level kind of ruined similar non VR games for me.

Like I just bought No Man's Sky since they added VR. I thought I'd only play it for 20 minutes just to see the algorithmically generated worlds but I ended up spending 20 hours in it in VR. I felt like a little kind full of wonder and glee everytime I jumped in a ship and took off. I felt like a little kind building a camp. I felt like a little kid when I found a water planet and launched and rode a submarine. Same with drilling through an entire mountain. It was amazing to "be there" instead of "looking at a picture of another character being there" (normal 3D games not in VR). It's not a great game yet IMO but just being in these situations in VR blows me away.

Breath of the Wild is my favorite game of all time but I was disappointed it was not in VR once in a while. I wanted to just be able to look around with my head not the R stick. I also like VR games where controls are in the world, not the buttons. Like reach over your shoulder to grab your sword and hold up your shield not press Y and old R.

I'm actually surprised Blizzard hasn't made VR WoW and hasn't either added facial capture attachment or pushed Valve/Oculus for one. If there was a low-res device that could capture your mouth shape and eyes so that your in game character could match your expression I'd think the enjoyment/addiction level of playing WoW would be 10x whatever it was at WoW's peak.

I agree the good content isn't there for VR yet and there isn't enough of it. I also agree there may never be a big market for many reasons. But, the moments VR's strengths shine I'm blown away and can't go back.

Sure, depends on what type of game you like to play too. VR WoW would be a disaster though. The input scheme is too complex and you typically zoom way out to see what's going on around you. I don't see how that could work.

I've played a lot of VR games but they were games with a beginning, middle and end. So in that regard you can't really put more time into them than the duration of the game. They were good games, though (for my preferences). Shout out to TO THE TOP for lasting me a very long 15 hours of arm pumping motions (and I didn't 100% it!) Room-scale VR is of course restricted by the user's physical condition, so you can't just marathon a 15 hour game.

The only uncapped VR experiences I've tried so far were Beat Saber, Rec Room and VR Chat. At the time of writing I'm at 99 hours of Beat Saber.

> Most hardcore gamers I know (not many to be fair) think it's a gimmick.

They have probably invested a bit in fine mouse motor skills and the like, and would have to essentially start over if VR games become the norm.

It seems that you have not tried VR. Please do try (preferably using a decent headset). The experience is incredible – at least for a while.

The problems are:

- locomotion. If teleportation makes sense in the game, then its fine. If you actually have to walk (really walk, not a vehicle), then yes, it is a problem. Since your playing area is constrained, you can't really move that much. If you move using the joystick, then your brain gets conflicting signals, and you may get motion sickness.

– resolution. If you have to read lots of things, it's not confortable. You can do it, but not for long. Which brings me to

– comfort. The headsets are not really that heavy. But because they basically seal your peripheral vision, they have to be relatively tight, which gets unconfortable. The materials used also mean it may get sweaty. For PC, also have cables you need to worry about, although it's not that big of a deal.

– setup. This is getting better. HTC vive used lighthouses, Rift used cameras. They were finnicky to get working correctly(additionally, the Rift required two extra high speed USB ports). They are both changing tracking technologies so this is already improving.

– price. These things are currently not cheap. Nor is replacing them every generation. For PC, you also need a good system, as it now has to push two images at a higher resolution and way higher refresh rates. If your system is underpowered and the game lags, you will become nauseated.

Problems aside, once we have cheaper and more portable systems, I expect the usage to skyrocket. The tech is far too entertaining for its own good :)

I’ve tried some from Samsung a few years ago. Nothing from Rift yet, but I’d love to.

I’m sure it’s very cool, but I’m not into games and don’t really want to be.

I played SimCity and World of Warcraft when I was a kid and it was enough for me to see how addictive and yet unfulfilling they are to me.

I still spend way too much time on the computer, probably a lot more, but I'm building something of my own, which is incredibly rewarding. Not judging, I just try to stay way from games and Netflix series for this reason.

What I'd love and pay an absurd amount of money would be an AR glasses where I can comfortably read for hours lying on a hammock or on commute.

Talk to anyone playing any games that already involve sitting in one place and you'll hear it's mandatory, not a gimmick. Think simulations, racing games, flying. The difference between a racing sim in vr vs on a monitor is a massive difference in immersion that is impossible with monitors. VR isn't a gimmick, we just don't know how to deal with converting our existing ideas of games with it. It's like the early days of video games, we're just trying to figure out how to actually develop for it.

I'm a big fan of 3D vision.

Something that surprises me is why the software industry dictates using VR controllers, rather than giving the option of just using VR purely for 3D vision; the games supporting VR generally are separate versions of the original ones, with teleportation system.

My guess is that if a middle-ground approach was an option, there would be a larger adoption.

Saying "the software industry dictates using VR controllers" misses the mark.

When Oculus Rift first released, the VR controllers weren't ready. Most demos were "3D vision" only (i.e., no input), and games used an Xbox One controller. As a Rift pre-orderer, I gave many demos to people in those early days.

Almost every single person looked around, said, "oh my god, this is incredible", and then raised their arms and tried to look at their hands.

Being unable to see your hands breaks immersion, while having the agency to literally reach out and interact with the virtual environment tricks your brain into believing it's real.

VR controllers aren't dictated by the software industry. They're demanded by nearly everyone that has used VR.

It's a niche more because of initial cost. The Quest seems to be a good standalone bridge for people who want to get into it. It's definitely not a gimmick. Everyone I've had try my Vive are blown away by it. Motion sickness is like sea legs, some people don't need to get used to it, others need a little time or adjusting.

Similar to mobile vs 10FT, to achieve a perception of linearity with regard to dot density, we need a massive leap in display and graphics interface technology. We are still only ~5% of the way there. Each dot density increase also increases latencies so this will take some time. Until we have 8k or equivalent resolution for each eye, the screen door effect will remain.

This is still one of the reasons I won't buy one of their headsets. Which sucks because the Quest is really cool, at least PC VR has better options/alternatives.

Unfortunately Oculus lost me as a potential customer when facebook acquired them. Palmer Luckey's various misadventures reinforce this feeling for me.

When will we all learn that ad-supported versus paid products are just a variation of the Stanford marshmallow experiment.

Free, ad-supported products are all about short term gratification because it costs us nothing today. Instead if we consider the long term when making these choices, then an investment in a paid no tracking product would be a better decision.

The problem is that the experiment itself showed the majority chose the short term gratification.

Why is it exactly a better decision? Perhaps for you, but I see no issue with being targeted with ads that may have a higher probability of a conversion. Especially if I make the choice I don't want to pay or vice versa.

Fair point. For me I seeing it as ceding control to some other company to decide what products and services I should buy. It's not complete control, but its a persistent influence that even if I know it is happening is hard to resist. Make no mistake that advertising does work even when you are completely aware that it is advertising.

I think in my core, freedom of choice is extremely valuable to me and so I tend to resist as much as possible attempts by others to control any amount of that choice for me.

Having said that, it means I also respect the choice of others to take the free product because the internal math on their side is different and they see it as the better decision for them. As long as we are all thinking through the decisions, then whatever we each choose is right for us.

> Make no mistake that advertising does work even when you are completely aware that it is advertising.

This is an interesting claim that I've heard before. Is there some way to measure the subconscious effect of advertising? It feels like a bit of a bogeyman to me.

FYI, the Stanford marshmallow experiment was shown to be a bit more problematic as of some new research in 2018. The recent study suggests we drew the wrong conclusions from the original. The recent study also corresponds awfully conveniently to the modern zeitgeist, however, which may also be problematic.

ref: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...

Neuralink mentioned they are looking at advertisements as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI (its somewhere at the end where they answer questions)

We said we were not looking at ads and that ads would never be a part of a business model for people with access to our SDK.

This misrepresents their position - which was that they were patient-first and would NOT be using advertising.

Surveillance capitalism is going to get a lot more scary

I am always all in for some good old Facebook bashing, but even I must say that probably won't end this way.