Wired magazine founding editor Kevin Kelly has a pretty interesting cover story on the secretive Magic Leap mixed reality startup and virtual reality in general which is worth a read, even if it covers familiar territory for most NWN readers.
And then when I got to this part, I of course sighed:
VR does two important things: One, it generates an intense and convincing sense of what is generally called presence. Virtual landscapes, virtual objects, and virtual characters seem to be there — a perception that is not so much a visual illusion as a gut feeling. That’s magical. But the second thing it does is more important. The technology forces you to be present — in a way flatscreens do not — so that you gain authentic experiences, as authentic as in real life. People remember VR experiences not as a memory of something they saw but as something that happened to them.
In other words, a sense of presence is VR's killer app. I could note here that Philip Rosedale and other VR enthusiasts always said the same thing about Second Life (but I've said that already). So I'll just say this: There's no proof whatsoever that virtual presence per se is an appealing feature beyond hardcore gamers and assorted 3D graphics enthusiasts.
Just to tick off eight supporting points from the top of my head:
- 3D MMOs have been around for 20 years, also create a sense of virtual presence, but haven't broken out of their gamer niche.
- Non-genre MMOs like Second Life and There have been around for over a decade, but they haven't broken out of their own niche either.
- While MMOs are accessible through a relatively common platform (i.e. PCs) but still remain niche, expensive, difficult to use VR headsets create an even higher barrier to entry.
- Minecraft is not an MMO but does create a sense of presence and has a very large userbase. However, most of its userbase are kids and teens -- people with high degrees of leisure time.
- Virtual presence (especially through full VR) requires real attention for long passages of time, during which time the user can do little beyond experiencing the virtual presence. (Contrast with how consumers multitask on PCs and smartphones.)
- Virtual presence also requires that the user remain physically confined to a chair or at minimum, an enclosed room. (Again, contrast with how consumers physically use PCs and smartphones nearly everywhere.)
- Virtual presence (especially through full VR) requires closing off actual presence -- cutting off the user from a sense of presence of their actual surroundings, including and especially the people around them.
- There's already a technology that creates a powerful sense of virtual presence but is much easier to use and has a much lower barrier to entry than VR. It's called a book.
All that said, I'm sure VR advocates will still keep touting presence as VR's killer app. They've literally been doing it for 30 years, so why stop now?
Please share this post:
Yeah, you're probably right.
I still really, really want one.
Posted by: Brookston Holiday | Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:10 AM
I think it's cool tech too, I just wish we could talk about it without injecting all this "IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD!!1!" shit.
Posted by: Wagner James Au | Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:19 AM
Hiya ... I think you're misremembering some key things that Philip said about presence waaay back in the SL days ... First of all, it's not just about a visceral sense of presence in an immersive environment, but being present with other people who can react with you in real time. Your pithy comment about books is cool - I love books! - but as fully as they imagine a world and put you in it, they don't put you in a world with other people who can also react and respond to that world.
Secondly, though just as importantly, Philip always knew we were constrained by the state of technology, and the only users who could really feel the sense of presence were the ones who would fight through the constraints of limited technology. It takes real determination as well as imagination to fight through the clumsy UI of a keyboard, mouse and monitor to force your mind into another world. VR is never going to have more users than the state of the technology allows.
But the unyielding march of technological development will continue to lower that barrier, and the real proof of whether a sense of (social) presence is compelling only comes when the barrier is virtually zero: 10000 peak GFLOPS/s in the client device, display embedded in contact lenses, sound in cochlear implants, input and sensory output embedded in clothing, etc. All of those things will exist, if only because the high-end market will demand it. And then from there, we can see whether demand allows for a scale of production that lowers prices enough to support a mass market.
I've been enjoying reading your been-there-done-that weariness over VR hype, and believe me I share an awful lot of the sentiment. But I don't buy your objections when they are based in "Well we tried that, it failed," or "Companies have tried that for 20 years," or "Technology is too expensive" - because here you are essentially making technology predictions, and this type of prediction has been proven wrong time and time again in the history of information technology.
I am more interested in your objections that are based on the limits of human nature - e.g. people can't be immersed, they need to multitask; people don't want to sit, people don't want to be in an enclosed room for too long; people prefer the world around them to the world in their heads. These are really interesting assertions about human nature, and as a culture writer you are really well equipped to unpack those assertions and explain more about what those limits are about, and why they exist.
Posted by: ginsu | Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 02:30 PM
Data exploration will be VR's killer app.
Posted by: monkey monkey monkey | Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 04:00 PM
Turning users into money sources and feeding the chase for the next throwaway fad will be VRs Killer Apps. Shrugs. Plus ça change.
Posted by: sirhc deSantis | Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 03:27 AM
"authentic experiences, as authentic as in real life"
Define "authentic."
Walking around virtual Paris may be fun and even a great way to plan actual travel. But as compelling and "authentic" as the real thing? That idea is worse than bullshit. It's actively evil because it tells us that we do not need to engage with our bodies in the real. It's making Buadrillard laugh somewhere at these hucksters and those who buy into their schemes to make money.
It's romantic to say "I'd rather endure an uncomfortable plane ride, the indignities of French Customs, an expensive hotel, and more just to savor a black-flour Breton crepe and I want to feel the breeze on the back of my neck as I tote it to a park to eat it. " I do, and yes, I want the actual "fecundity of the unexpected," to use William Least-Heat Moon's term, an authenticity that comes with physical travel to places that are not hyperreal like Disneyland or over-planned to the point of banality, like the American Interstate.
I will, however, concede that walking around a simulated Rome of Vespasian's era and interacting with others wearing VR rigs would be very, very cool. Now THAT I could appreciate since what I'd call "the authentic Ancient Rome" is long gone.
If this VR tech goes mass market, it will be time to raise the Project Mayhem flag of Tyler Durden over a pack of promises that the fake can equal "the authentic."
Posted by: Iggy | Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 02:16 PM