You keep going back and forth with nonsense.
VR carries a compilation of all the aforementioned limitations.
No. The tech is affordable. The market does not exist because the masses don't want VR
What?
There's one concept you glossed over: Perfect VR/AR simulates every other form of media without limitation except
I'm not going to spend ages naming everything, so instead I'll say that we have 5 AAA VR games made just for VR on the way, as well as Bethesda still releasing games, Rockstar still releasing games, and Ubisoft still releasing games.
No. Audio is not fixed. It has actually regressed and was better in tech demos 20 years ago than it is today in AAA games. VR solves audio by allowing for spatial audio to feel natural. It's also going to jumpstart an audio revolution in audio propagation and consumer audio solutions that no audio headset manufacturer has tackled.
Supposedly costs only a few dozen dollars to make. And the moment you get a big company like Facebook churning these out, they'll be plenty cheap. A Tobii eye tracker is $150 on Amazon from what I can see, any yet eye tracking will be common in VR in a few years.
This does not exist based on what we know about technology today.
You guys are saying VR will replace Phones, tablets, and computers all of which cost much more than $450 right now.
Right now VR/AR tech isn't ready to replace phones/tablets/computers so the price comparison doesn't really make sense today.
What? You can simulate a screen today, which means it already has the functionality of everything else built in. It's just low resolution and the interfaces are clearly not there yet, because hand / eye-tracking is not yet perfect.
If my Oculus Rift had a resolution of 5500 x 5500 pixels per eye today, it would replace any 4K display in the world, and would also replace movie theaters - all the real world counterparts would be perfectly recreated in VR with the same quality.
There will be different manifestations of this. By 2022, Oculus wants to release a VR headset that would real-time reconstruct reality (which gives you the AR part) and we'd have the intelligent interfaces (eye-tracking, hand-tracking) as well as high enough resolution to at least simulate any 1080p display. I doubt it will be comfortable enough for the average person in just 3 years, but I would expect the generation after that to use waveguide displays, giving us the same style of headset seen in Ready Player One. So by 2025, I expect it will be both feasible and at least reasonably comfortable to have a VR/AR hybrid.
VR and AR will have separate product paths for at least 10 years. But VR headsets will do AR during that time. AR glasses will just do AR.
If you're talking about Michael Abrash, he has actually been a little pessimistic. Things are moving so fast that his initial predictions are being surpassed, and those were already well beyond what people imagined of VR in that timeframe.
Advancements are small from what we can buy now or for products this year, because everything is still generation 1. If you've seen Abrash's full talk, then you'd know that they are aiming for at least 14x the image quality of PSVR by 2022, along with the many breakthroughs needed to kick VR off.
Don't believe everything Michael "Presence is an incredibly powerful sensation, and it's unique to VR; there's no way to create it in any other medium " Abrash says. He needs to be bullish with the coming recession. Shareholders will ask why they're still investing in this niche thing when the inevitable stock collapse happens. If you think all of that stuff will be there in 2025, I think you're setting yourself up for a massive disappointment.
Any examples of ways to achieve it outside of VR? Rather than just stating it's bullshit...
Sure, read a book (cf. transportation), watch a movie (cf. diegetic effect), do a training, or engage in any kind of make believe play activity. Our mind is constantly constructing alternative worlds we inhabit, VR just offloads some of the cognitive work more than certain other media (though not always better).
Have you tried good VR? As an avid reader, who watches movies a lot more than most, and also trains regularly.... These examples are way off.
....yes
So why are you claiming that those are comparable to the presence (feeling of being present) that VR achieves? I mean you run a VR lab. What do you do there?
Definitions are indeed important but I'm not confusing anything. (in the science regarding presence, immersion is often used to denote the technological properties of the system and could be considered unique to VR)
As has continually been pointed out in this thread there are AR glasses on the market now, and they do everything a phone would do.
Eh I don't have an exact definition at hand (and I'm not sure there is one), but something along the lines of "the experience or sensation of being physically and socially in a fictitious space to the extent that there is some level of illusion of non-mediation". Immersion I'm more in the camp of Mel Slater, that is the (procedural/narratological or physical) qualities of the medium that make the experience of presence possible. (see Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology. Presence connect, 3(3), 1-5.)
