Virtual Reality Hype: Why Isn't It 1992 All Over Again?

In 1992, which as it happens, is the year Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey was born, TV programs like this were shown all the time:

Note that the host refers to there being "So much hype around virtual reality" (thanks to novels like Snow Crash published that year, along with constant references in film and TV), goes on to covers real world applications of VR like marketing research and architectural modeling. Then a VR evangelist comes on and enthuses, "It's coming out of the labs and into our laps, almost".  

Or course, that turned out to be way wrong, and is still wrong -- for 99.99% of us, VR still isn't in our laps, so to speak. And the obvious question is, besides the hairstyles and computing systems that are far better and cheaper now, what's the essential difference between 1992 and 2015?

This video comes via Reddit's /Oculus group, with the top comment in the thread being this trenchant one from a virtual reality developer -- and it's surprising it's also the most upvoted:

That's the danger, even now - some of the major issues have been ironed out, but many others remain. People seem to go "wow" over the headsets, but they never ask to try it again. Even I go days without using mine, except when I'm developing. So will this time around be like 1992?

The failure of Google Glass to get past early adopter stage increases this concern, because without an established category of successful head-mounted display products, Oculus and the other systems have another hurdle to overcome. And from a market perspective, maybe the only real difference between 1992 and now is that far more major companies -- Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, etc. -- are investing far much more money trying to take VR mass market. That money might be enough for the technology to really gain traction this time. Or perhaps as likely, lead to a far more spectacular crash and burn.

Please share this post:

Tweet

 

Comments

[Amanda Dallin]

My money is on crash and burn except for a few niches like virtual attending a RL event such as a sporting event or concert.

People want simpler for everyday use not more complicated. That's why phones and tablets are so popular. Simple solutions to everyday problems.

[Ciaran Laval]

You can go back a lot further than 1992 to find a reluctance for people to wear peripherals over their eyes on a regular basis, trying to get people to watch 3D movies has its roots over a century ago.

I think Amanda is right about sporting events and concerts, they have real potential to take advantage but for many people the process of using all those extra peripherals will be a barrier.

I still say it's too early to get too excited about all this, patience is required.

[Cube Republic]

I said ages ago that the technology would not involve masks, but would use some kind of implant.

http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/02/15/biology-technology-darpa-back-game-big-vision-h/?1

[Rin]

I have to say that I think that everything that uses a big headset like the Oculus Rift is a dead end and will never achieve any big success. It might have some specific uses .. training simulations come to mind, but I just can't see it finding it's way into the big consumer market.
It is just too big of a hinderence to daily life to block everything out like this and sit on the couch with this headset on. Microsoft has the much better approach there and even when I am uncertain of how it might turn out (or if it actually be usable at all), I think it is still the more usable idea then something like the Oculus headset.

To be honest, I have not yet heard even one idea about what the one big application would be that brings VR *into our lap*. Even most games would not fit well with it and not everyone who plays games would like to do it this way. So the market is even smaller ... but what is there beside it that would bring it out of specific work situations and into the homes of everyone?

It actually also might be going against the current trend of everything being more and more mobile. And being in VR while walking down a street might not be the most healthy thing to do ... so instead of VR I think it should be more AR - Augmented Reality. That is where I would put my money into.

[Cyberserenity]

I have used my Oculus for 6 months now. Going in to Second life or Opensim without it is only half the experience. I will never go back to the old screen way. Maybe for building and scripting there the Oculus s.ck.

[Adeon Writer]

The most dangerous thing to VR is bad VR games. It only takes one badly written game to make someone sick and they will NOT wear it again.

[Roblem VR]

"...what's the essential difference between 1992 and 2015?" Price.

In the 80's anything close to a VR system cost $200,000 for black and white wireframe graphics. By the 90's the price was closer to $20,000 with basic color shaded low resolution (400x300) graphics. Today you can get a reasonable if not "perfect" VR experience from the smartphone in your pocket with a cardboard frame holding a couple of lenses for well under $20.

Oculus has sold over 100,000 units of it's "DK2" Developer Kits. Google announced that it has sold more than 500,000 Google Cardboard units, with dozens of other companies selling their own versions of it. The intro Google Cardboard demo app has had well over a million installs.

Other than the Samsung Gear VR ($200) there isn't any polished consumer VR available to the general public and most people know nothing about this wave of VR yet. With prices going down and quality going up are you really predicting that we are in for a repeat of what happened to VR over 20 years ago?

[A.J.]

This technology is a hard sell because because you look at it and it screams "get a life!".

I think it's really just that simple.

[Iggy]

Oh you youngsters with your goggles and gloves! In the late 1960s I was promised that I'd enjoy a clam-roll at the Howard Johnson's in orbit, after a short flight up on Pam Am's shuttle.

Still waiting.

[Iggy]

*PAN AM* Where are my bifocals? I must have left them in my flying car.

[anamegoeshereiguess]

It is hyped. It will not "succeed." It will "flop."

And it will make some peoples million$ and million$ of dollars, even after it "flops."

Examples or evidence of virtual worlds not dying, though they may not all make millions like SL:

Active Worlds. Since 1995. Hype and then death you say? Don't tell these guys, regardless of headsets it survives. Headsets will most likely survive AND there have always been headsets available in some form or another, just costly and less popular. Death = not popular? STD's are populous, popularly known but I don't want one.

There. Yes, they are still around last I checked.

Moove. Company was founded 1994, I am telling you these things don't really die. This one is rarely mentioned, yet still has a website up.

Habbohotel. Not exactly hi-fidelity and as high tech in graphics but is legendary in some circles.

Old NES? Dead, no one plays those? Yes they do, I even have played an old game system I got for free and was tempted by a gamecube just last month.

They don't exactly die, they still have following BUT the difference is what makes money. Virtual worlds and gear may still make money, it has stayed alive for a long time and finally the gear is cheap.

Kinects sit at home, no one uses them. Sure, they get less use than one would expect. But, Microsoft upgraded to higher resolution system and so on. They still make them, even though declared useless by some news agencies.

Kinects make no money? Sure, all games are not made for them. But it is like saying no ones knits since machines could knit. They sell plastic knitting machines to hobiests to make socks with for crying out loud.

Why does everything have to be in some pop starlets music video to exist? But, virtual reality most likely has been.

Hyped? Southpark has that covered, it has been hyped.

Maybe the samsung headset lays collecting dust with the duckhunt gun from your nes. But, when you sell it someone gets it and loves using it for a while. Headsets for PC's are not the same though, they are not tied to specific hardware. Same for xbox handsets, HD discs that lost the blueray vs. whateveritwascalled HD video war for instance. Yes, you can use some xbox stuff with windows OS based PC gear. The stuff lives on, people buy the discs and such. But, the companies may not make money. Headsets for VR have always been with us, there are always some for sale, now they are cheap. So, they sit right up there with other hobbies, hobby companies can make millions. Maybe the headset for xbox flops, the old stuff will still sell in used markets and then those folks will be mostly using PC's. So, if Oculus folds because they spend to much on marketing and don't get anywhere we will see another pick-up and make money. SL picked up where others failed, not the others don't have a population of their own. Few ghost towns in virtual worlds, never a year where someone didn't fire up a headset somewhere on the planet.

Mass success is obvious, the only way mobie computing succeeded was because of phone contracts and phone snobbery of being better that the other in line with you at the store or on the school yard.

Hate to say it, no one really liked mobile handsets that ran windwos CE that where around. They where called "Palmtops" to those less nerdy, less memorable. The HP Jordana? Palm OS was the most popular one, the cheapest one with the old school no color LCD screen. Think about it.

Before that, some people always carried a pocket knife. Some carry pen and paper. Some a camera. These people all existed before the phone replaced it. You could use a calculator at the grocery store and a piece of paper. It took your mind to do the planning and such. Since computers can do thinking for many, now everyone seems to think a revolution will come about. Mobile this and mobile that, but people already did things on the go. That is why pocket calculators, pocket books and pocket watches where named such.

Silliness is always popular, so I might as well ramble on I guess. But, I think some people who understand the longevity, the hobby angle and the fact that VR headsets have been around for over a decade and never went anywhere may understand why I say it. Millions of dollars, and still a "flop." sounds OK to me.

[iisingh]

I said ages ago that the technology would not involve masks, but would use some kind of implant.

such a science visionary. I am in awe. Perhaps you can patent troll Gibson or Sterling.

[iisingh]

You also predicted a 3-D operating system... I am still chuckling over that one.

[Shhhbequiet]

Xmas 2015 will be the deciding point. If the gear and CONTENT delivered this December don't wow the recipients, then party is over.

It's not just the gear, it's the content. The content people making games, experiences, concerts, whatever may or may not be able to generate enough awesome stuff in the next 9 months. It may be up to virtual worlds of Second Life and OpenSim to be the awesome.

Nine months is a very short time. Get busy.