Palmer Luckey: 3D TV was never a real medium, it was a feature

"The thing about 3D TV is that it was never a real medium..."

We might be saying the exact same thing about VR in 5 years. Stay tuned.

@Paul
You missed the point.
VR IS a real medium. It is it's own thing. The fact you even said that, clearly tells me you have no idea at all what he meant by 3D being a feature.

3D on a tv doesn't change anything other than the images popping out. You essentially still have the same experience. You are still doing the same thing. VR is nothing like that. It's not even in the same ball park.

Even if it doesn't do well, you still couldn't say that about VR because it is still it's own medium whether it's successful or not. All Palmer is pointing out, is the comparison between VR and 3D simply can't be done. They are way too different to make such claims. Just because 3D didn't do well, doesn't mean VR will not. Anytime someone points to 3D, all I can think about is the lack of intelligence it must take in order to even make such a comparison. It's an illogical argument. Those two things don't even correlate with each and are vastly different experiences.

If VR fails, it's going to fail on it's own, and it has nothing at all to do with 3D. I believe that is the point he is trying to make.

I honestly wish people would stop talking so negatively until it's time to do so. It's stupid to write something off before it's even gotten started. I don't even understand how anyone could be part of this industry being like that. It's very unimaginative, and down right sad. Innovation is extremely important, we can't just keep doing the same thing over and over again without moving forward. If we did that, we would still be playing pong.

Heck, I never thought 3D TVs where going to take off, but I certainly was not a downer about it. I didn't make remarks about it saying it was just a gimmick. For all I knew, it could have done really well. If everyone thought the way some some you do here about VR, this industry wouldn't be where it is today. You would never get anywhere with such a negative outlook on new tech.

Oh BS, 3DTV is not a gimmick, at least not to me, I really enjoy 3DTV.. You can say everything you don't think is usefull is a gimmick, hell I even think a smartphone is a gimmick in a context like that...

And I agree with Brook, you cannot compare 3DTV (or using a static monitor connected to your PC) with VR, the two are completely different things..

The reason people mention 3D TV in a conversation about VR's ultimate doom is not as a tech thing, or a "medium" thing or anything like that.

When I say VR is dommed and liken it to 3DTV being doomed, it's because they're both doomed for the same reason. Having to sit down and put all the kit on your face. This is going to be doublly bad for VR where you have to sit there with some stupid thing obstructing your face as you sit with your family to watch whatever the simpsons analog is meant to be.

Because of this it will NEVER be mainstream. A fun gamers gimmick for a while, maybe. But you grannie will never don one of these things so all this talk about mainstream is just stupid imo.

I'm just waiting for the networks to create the infrastructure to allow you to watch a sports game from the perspective of someone in the stadium. The technology already exists.

Do that and it won't be niche for much longer.

@Paul Johnson

Having to sit down and put all the kit on your face.

I don't think that is why 3D failed though. That is probably why it doesn't work for you personally, but not why it failed overall.

This is going to be doublly bad for VR where you have to sit there with some stupid thing obstructing your face as you sit with your family to watch whatever the simpsons analog is meant to be.

If you are playing VR with family, you don't need to see each other's faces. You are playing in a game world. When you see each other, it's also going to be in that game world.

I sometimes feel some people here simply don't understand or get it. If you are playing VR with others, it doesn't matter if something is obstructing your face. You can't see it.

Because of this it will NEVER be mainstream.

You never know. I say ... it's better to wait and find out. I agree it will not be mainstream at first, but in the future? Sorry, but to me VR is logically the next step in gaming, and the easiest way to do it, is through a head set.

A fun gamers gimmick for a while, maybe.

PC gamers are going to be the main market for a while. I doubt it will be some gimmick though. I don't even understand why anyone would think it's a gimmick. Again, I see it as the next logical step in gaming. Why wouldn't you want VR?

But you grannie will never don one of these things so all this talk about mainstream is just stupid imo.

Not sure why you feel grannies need to get involved in order for it to be considered mainstream. If we followed that rule of thumb, most newer technology couldn't be considered mainstream then. Also .. if you look up the definition, it really only means the norm, or popular trend. So I really don't think you need to include grannies in it lol.

If I'm sat in the living room with my wife, and I'm playing while she's on her iPad or reading a book, we can have a conversation while I idly murder orcs. I can eat a snack and drink a cup of tea while I'm playing too.

That's what people are talking about when they say VR is isolating. Great for teenagers in their bedrooms, or things where everyone in the room is involved (such as the theme park ride setting) - but who's going to buy 4 VR headsets so everyone can play at home? How many families buy multiple controllers that only cost $50?

Five years before the iPad and Facebook most people would have scoffed if you'd said everyone from toddlers to pensioners would be effortlessly using computers as part of their daily routine now.

Dismissals of VR that can't get their head around the idea of kit getting smaller and lighter and use cases existing that aren't possible using a screen and an indirect interface are short sighted.

As for when people will buy a headset for each person in a household, that will happen if/when they are commodity priced computing appliances, like PCs and phones.

I've said it before though the biggest barrier I think to VR is that I don't want to stand up to play. My usual position playing a game is lay back on the sofa or a comfy chair. I'm fairly certain for most people that is theirs too. And once you've put yourself in an immobile position you've essentially removed most of the point. Believe me. As soon as I realised with the wii you could win a tennis match with an idle minuscule flick of the wrist as easily as you could prancing about the room with great sweeping swings I spend the rest of the wii's gaming life doing so. Nothing I've heard about VR has persuaded me I'd want to use it for anything more than 10-15 minutes the ways it's meant to be used. And if you're essentially normally using it while immobile any benefits become much more negligable

@Anthony
I think it more depends on whether or not a person's wife enjoys playing games. Obviously if you are a married man, and your wife doesn't want to join in on the experiences you also enjoy, it wouldn't work, and you would have the problem described.

In that case, you would be better off playing when you are alone, Though since that is likely never, the device will also likely not be aimed at someone like you.

However, I am suspecting even non gamers are going to enjoy such a device. So your scenario very well may not be the usual. I can see plenty of couples enjoying using VR together.

I think the biggest issue with some of you is you are all writing it off far too soon without thinking about how much a VR device can do.

@Robin
Yep, in fact computers in general where scoffed at if you talked about putting them in house holds.

@Justin

I've said it before though the biggest barrier I think to VR is that I don't want to stand up to play. My usual position playing a game is lay back on the sofa or a comfy chair. I'm fairly certain for most people that is theirs too.

Depends on the game you are playing. Also, just because you are use too sitting down, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy playing a game standing up. It's a vastly different experience. Being in a VR world you might even have the compulsion to stand. I mean, if you think it's anything like standing while in front of a TV, then you are thinking about it wrong XD.

And once you've put yourself in an immobile position you've essentially removed most of the point.

Again, depends on the game. Not all games require standing. Any game that puts your character in a sitting position will work just fine.

Believe me. As soon as I realised with the wii you could win a tennis match with an idle minuscule flick of the wrist as easily as you could prancing about the room with great sweeping swings I spend the rest of the wii's gaming life doing so.

That is not really the same thing. XD Totally different experiences.

Nothing I've heard about VR has persuaded me I'd want to use it for anything more than 10-15 minutes the ways it's meant to be used. And if you're essentially normally using it while immobile any benefits become much more negligable

You clearly don't get it. VR isn't just a standing up experience. -.-

As someone who got involved with 3D TV in 2006, 4 years before there was a standard, I'm telling you that VR will not be mainstream because of the visor.

TV is a social experience the glasses interfere with. It's not that they need to be lighter (Samsung current glasses I just got with my tv are horrible and cheap compared to my 2010 glasses), that was of separation and loss of socialization is the problem. VR is just a hundred times worse.

I'm a huge 3D and VR enthusiast, but I understand the limitations, and that the reality is that augmented reality is what will be mainstream, not VR.

PLEASE make me wrong, but nearly ten years in, I'm not thinking I am

@Jeff

As someone who got involved with 3D TV in 2006, 4 years before there was a standard, I'm telling you that VR will not be mainstream because of the visor.

Let me ask you something. Did you some how ... not get the article? Did you read it?
The articles was pretty much describing how 3D TV and VR can't be compared. They are way to different to draw such comparisons. Even if 3D TV did fail specifically because of the glasses you needed to wear, that does not mean VR will.

TV is a social experience the glasses interfere with.

Good thing we are not talking about TV. We are talking about VR, which is vastly different. It can still be social even with the headset on because if you have 2 people playing, you can see each other in the game and still socialize. Again, this whole social interference people keep mentioning makes no sense to me, because while in game, you can't see the headset anyway.
This maybe a problem with 3DTV, but that doesn't mean it will be for VR.

VR is just a hundred times worse.

Explain how it's worse exactly. People socialize through games all the time, and if anything VR makes that better ... not worse.
If we are talking about in the same room, I still don't think it would get in the way of socializing as long as you can see each other in the game. Heck, even if you couldn't see each other, I still don't think that would limit socializing. That would be like saying you are less social on a phone, or internet, and honestly that isn't the case.

I'm a huge 3D and VR enthusiast, but I understand the limitations, and that the reality is that augmented reality is what will be mainstream, not VR.

I don't think you understand the limitations at all. I don't think most people do. VR has only gotten good recently, and it's still not at where it needs to be. We will eventually have a consumer release that is better than anything that is out today.

As for augmented reality. Totally different experience used in different manners. One is augmenting the real world, while the other is putting you into a new world entirely.

3DTV, VR, and AR .. are all 3 different experiences and are not really comparable.

@Brook. While I appreciate your points I'm still not convinced. I accept I maybe wrong but my gut feeling tells me this will never be mainstream. The very fact Palmer Luckey feels a need to say VR is much better than 3D tv shows to me he is concerned people are viewing it the same way in terms of reach and success.

VR will appeal I'm sure to a core set of gamers. But for it to become the next big thing as he puts it it needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of people that I just think won't want to to play with a headset on. Your point about the husband and wife is a valid one but if it doesn't appeal to both in some way then it's not going to have mass appeal. I know wii is different but there is at it's core the same principle. It appealed to so many outside of core gaming not just because of the gimmick but because the gimmick allowed you to be social. VR is not going to work very well as something that involves the whole family. I'm not saying that instantly kills it. But it does make it much harder to achieve the mass broad spectrum appeal that Palmer Luckey and other VR supporters seem convinced it will

Something else I find interesting. It does seem suspicious that any other technology like 3D tv or the wii that may imply difficulties ahead for VR is immediately dismissed as completely unrelated without any real convincing (if given at all) reason as to why they aren't. I think these other technologies all are relevant to some degree and if people want VR to be mainstream they shouldn't dismiss them as irrelevant but take a long cold hard look at the issues they encountered which may need to be considered in order to move VR forward into the mainstream. It is my view that they all provide pertinent parallels (not identical situations though. Not claiming that) that it would be foolish to ignore. Instead of looking to try and find excuses of how they are completely unrelated it would be far more sensible to focus on how in ways they are and work on issues arising from that.

Since when did socializing become the most important thing when launching a new games platform?

I must be getting old.

If you claim it's going to be mainstream and not just aimed at core gamers then social aspect is definitely an important factor

@Justin

Something else I find interesting. It does seem suspicious that any other technology like 3D tv or the wii that may imply difficulties ahead for VR is immediately dismissed as completely unrelated without any real convincing (if given at all) reason as to why they aren't.

Convince me it's related first, because as far as I am aware, they are totally separate things. Using them in an argument with out any actual reason to, is called a fallacy. It's illogical and makes no sense unless you actually have a reason to compare them in such a way.

I think these other technologies all are relevant to some degree and if people want VR to be mainstream they shouldn't dismiss them as irrelevant but take a long cold hard look at the issues they encountered which may need to be considered in order to move VR forward into the mainstream.

Why? Please give me an example of why you think they are relevant.

It is my view that they all provide pertinent parallels (not identical situations though. Not claiming that) that it would be foolish to ignore. Instead of looking to try and find excuses of how they are completely unrelated it would be far more sensible to focus on how in ways they are and work on issues arising from that.

Again ,there is no logical reason to do that. Unless the technologies where similar and had the same issues, it would make more sense to do so. But 3DTV isn't anything at all like VR. Not even the head set is similar.

Edit:

The very fact Palmer Luckey feels a need to say VR is much better than 3D tv shows to me he is concerned people are viewing it the same way in terms of reach and success.

I would say that is a valid reason to be concerned. There are plenty of people who are viewing it in that way, and he is trying to point out that viewing it that way is just plain wrong. There actually isn't any logical reason to view it in that manner. People do it, because they don't understand it, and people in general are very illogical. Always drawing comparisons to things that have nothing to do with each other.

@Brook

The mainstream exists, most commonly as families and people otherwise living with other people. People have friends over.

Just look at all the whining when they took couch co-op out of Halo 5

VR isolates the user, by necessity from the world. Hardcore gamers don't care about socialization, but most people aren't excited by their avatars talking but they are excited when you put on A Google Glass type device that puts grandma in the living room Christmas morning.

You need to seperate the hardcore gamer, who wants that immersive experience form the mainstream gamer that by all telemetry never finishes most of the games they buy. Did you know that according to ex infinity ward people, 50% of players never touch the Call of Duyty campaign, and 5% actually finish it? True Achievements is a site for the hardest of the hardcore, and less than 64% of players registered there have finished the campaign on advanced warfare (25% on Veteran).

For any technology to make it past "gimmick", it has to continue to provide new experiences, and offer something compelling to improve the things you do every day. VR likely will not do this. AR will. So if the Google Glass you use to enhance your day the plugs into your game console and offers you enhanced HUD, video chat etc, it'll stick around. But it does that in a way mom can still tell Joey to clean his room without screaming at him.

Seriously, we've done huge studies on why 3Dtv failed to take off, and the big thing people who are looking at purchasing a new TV had in common were the isolation factors. They didn't articulate it the same way, but it's what it boils down to. Also, multiple VR will require multiple consoles. While the number of households with multiples of the same console is growing, you're asking a minimum $700 investment per player as things now stand. Not happening.

Most people will say wow, and it'll bleed out in a year.

As I said, I'm a huge VR, 3D enthusiast, but that's reality. The true key is keeping the hardcore engaged, and there will still be plenty of money for many VR experiences.

@Brook Alright. But this is the last I'm going to comment on this. 3DTV and vr (in my view) are both viewing experiences of visual entertainment that both are/were both trumpeted as the next big way of watching and playing new forms of entertainment. Both are/were described as going to be the new defacto way of consuming movies and gaming both due to claims of a new depth of immersion. 3D TV has failed to become so despite claims it would do. Claims that in my eyes sound identical to vr. Sad thing is 3d could have been more successful if they had been more focused in their marketing targets instead of just loudly proclaiming it was the next big thing. Much it seems to me like vr. Both had the companies who created them loudly proclaiming them to be so as though they were worried if they didn't shout it loud enough it the general public might not notice the next big thing. That to me is why I feel they are comparable. On the other hand you are right that 3dtv is not the most like comparison. The closest is current hdtv and gaming. To me vr is ultimately a screen really close to your face with headphones and the look around thumb stick of a gaming controller hooked up to detect head moments. Is it in reality a deeper experience than that? Of course it is. Is it the massive leap forward it claims to be? To me no. And if I was to ask any of my friends and family outside of a small circle who are really into new tech they aren't that bothered by it. And they're the ones it needs to hook if it's to go mainstream. Not the sort of people that post here. It has a valid niche market if it focuses on that properly but it hasn't hooked people outside of that market. So there you go. That's my final thoughts. End of the day it didn't matter if you convince me you're right. For it to go mainstream it's the average family member you need to convince.

@Jeff

VR isolates the user, by necessity from the world.

VR does not prevent socializing. There isn't any evidence that suggests people seeing each other directly is required.

Hardcore gamers don't care about socialization, but most people aren't excited by their avatars talking but they are excited when you put on A Google Glass type device that puts grandma in the living room Christmas morning.

Again, there is nothing about VR that prevents socializing. It's a non argument. Also your google glass argument is irrelevant. Just because people are excited about google glass, doesn't mean they are not about VR. They are used for two different purposes and have nothing to do with each other.

You need to seperate the hardcore gamer, who wants that immersive experience form the mainstream gamer that by all telemetry never finishes most of the games they buy.

I don't think you have to. There isn't any reason why we should assume VR will only remain for hardcore gamers. There is also no reason to assume it wouldn't attract even more people to try games. Why choose a minority audience before you even know which audiences would be interested in it? Sorry, but I think it's better to wait till we reach a point that most people have at least tried VR. Then we can decide who is and who isn't interested.

Did you know that according to ex infinity ward people, 50% of players never touch the Call of Duyty campaign, and 5% actually finish it? True Achievements is a site for the hardest of the hardcore, and less than 64% of players registered there have finished the campaign on advanced warfare (25% on Veteran).

Has nothing to do with VR though.

For any technology to make it past "gimmick", it has to continue to provide new experiences, and offer something compelling to improve the things you do every day. VR likely will not do this.

Last I checked .. like most video games, each new game is that new experience. So as long as games are being made, and are VR compatible .. that is not an issue. So don't pretend like it is. As for improving the things you do everyday ... I think that is another BS argument because consoles don't do anything to improve the things you do everyday. It's entertainment. It's only purpose is to entertain. VR can do that just fine. Your arguments are very bad. You claim VR will not do this .. without explaining WHY you think that.

AR will. So if the Google Glass you use to enhance your day the plugs into your game console and offers you enhanced HUD, video chat etc, it'll stick around. But it does that in a way mom can still tell Joey to clean his room without screaming at him

Makes you wonder why video games in general have stuck around since it didn't offer you even half of that in the past. Again .. I don't understand your argument ... it literally makes no sense at all. In fact . .technically VR can pretty much do all that.

Also ... what parents doesn't scream at their child to clean their room? What kind of argument is that? How on earth is VR going to make that worse? You do know VR doesn't take away a persons hearing .. right? You don't need to be able to see someone in order to hear them.

Seriously, we've done huge studies on why 3Dtv failed to take off, and the big thing people who are looking at purchasing a new TV had in common were the isolation factors.

Let me ask you something. What don't you understand by TV and VR being entirely different experiences? An issue that plagued one thing doesn't mean it will plague another when they are vastly different experiences. That would be like saying that computers would have never taken off due to isolation factors. Even though computers do have that same issue .. didn't stop computers from taking off.
Hell, computers are one of the most social platforms that exists today. Seeing each others faces isn't required.

Also, multiple VR will require multiple consoles. While the number of households with multiples of the same console is growing, you're asking a minimum $700 investment per player as things now stand. Not happening.

We are talking about the future .. not current day. So that is irrelevant as of now.

As I said, I'm a huge VR, 3D enthusiast, but that's reality. The true key is keeping the hardcore engaged, and there will still be plenty of money for many VR experiences.

I don't care if you are a VR, 3D enthusiast. That doesn't make you anymore right in your arguments. I still think they are incredibly faulty and are based on no data at all. All the data you have is based on an entirely different technology.

@Justin

Alright. But this is the last I'm going to comment on this. 3DTV and vr (in my view) are both viewing experiences of visual entertainment that both are/were both trumpeted as the next big way of watching and playing new forms of entertainment.

Still doesn't make them the same.

Both are/were described as going to be the new defacto way of consuming movies and gaming both due to claims of a new depth of immersion.

Still doesn't make them the same.

3D TV has failed to become so despite claims it would do. Claims that in my eyes sound identical to vr.

Still doesn't make them the same. Also .. that is a fallacy of relevance. The two have nothing to do with each other, regardless if these so called claims sound identical.

Sad thing is 3d could have been more successful if they had been more focused in their marketing targets instead of just loudly proclaiming it was the next big thing. Much it seems to me like vr. Both had the companies who created them loudly proclaiming them to be so as though they were worried if they didn't shout it loud enough it the general public might not notice the next big thing.

More and more arguments based on fallacies. Just because one was proclaimed to be the next big thing and failed, doesn't mean everything else that proclaims such a thing will also fail. They have nothing to do with each other, and for all you know, where one fails another could succeed. You will not know till it happens, and you can't draw conclusions based on something irrelevant.

That to me is why I feel they are comparable.

Those things don't make the technologies themselves comparable. All you did is list similar circumstances based around those technologies and not the technologies themselves. Again, it's a fallacious argument. Not sure how many times I need to point that out.

To me vr is ultimately a screen really close to your face with headphones and the look around thumb stick of a gaming controller hooked up to detect head moments.

And of course that would make you wrong. There is a lot more going on than just that. In other words, you couldn't achieve the same result just by putting a screen really close to your face. If that was all it was, of course it wouldn't be successful because that isn't real VR. That is what they tried to do in the past, and it did not work.

Is it the massive leap forward it claims to be? To me no.

It's not even finished yet, and it most certainly is a massive leap to anything we had prior.

And if I was to ask any of my friends and family outside of a small circle who are really into new tech they aren't that bothered by it. And they're the ones it needs to hook if it's to go mainstream.

Have they all tried it? No? Then your argument here is irrelevant. You can't ask them if they are interested in something they have not tried. Most people are going to be skeptical of VR until they actually get their hands on a device to actually try it. If then they are not interested ... you would then have a point. We have not reached that far yet.

It has a valid niche market if it focuses on that properly but it hasn't hooked people outside of that market.

And it won't till they try it. Again . .the argument is invalid until that time comes. You can't claim who and who isn't interested when practically no one has tried it yet to even know if they are or are not interested.

End of the day it didn't matter if you convince me you're right. For it to go mainstream it's the average family member you need to convince.

I, believe, if done right, it will sell all on it's own. It's offering an experience that nothing else around can offer. Simple as that. What will make it or break it is the software that is released with it.

Also .. have you not watched people react to the oculus? Even older people are amazed by it and are interested after they try it.

Fair enough. We will just have to agree to disagree until history has played itself out on the subject one way or another

If you're a gamer and you have high end graphics cards - I don't want to stereotype - but you're probably not the kind of person who cares about fashion.

It doesn't sound like VR is even being aimed at the mainstream so I don't know what the reason for most of the arguments in this debate.

Eventually will it go beyound hardcore gamers? Who knows but even if it doesn't that's still a huge market.

The way the question was put I think Palmer was right to dismiss the comparison. However, I also think Justin is right to warn against complacency. It may seem obvious but its important to distinguish between the terms VR and HMD. When people say VR is isolating I suspect they're thinking of the ski-goggle style HMD and not say, standing in a CAVE. In the short term the most practical way for most people to experience VR will be these commercial HMDs. VR improves with the amount of proprioception you can simulate. For instance, if your character is stood up and walking then so should you. This arrangement is fine if you have a minder ensuring that you and those around you are safe. There are other issues such as the easy with which you can plug-and-play. Some think that the real problem with 3DTV was lack of content and if there is a valid comparison that might be it.
The continuing ease with which games can be made will likely be crucial, and that includes user generated content.
I agree with John that the discussion about mainstream isn't helpful when that's unlikely within the next decade. You could say console gaming isn't even mainstream but does that matter?

We were so tired of responding to the majority of the points raised in discussions like this, my colleague Ben wrote an article illustrating why they're fallacies. You can find it here..

Of course, there are many other reasons why VR may fail, but these are the most commonly held up by detractors.

3D TV problem was it could never have exclusive content, only enhanced content. David Attenborough is filming a 360 degree documentary where the viewer moves on rails through a world they can look around in. VR undoubtedly is a platform unto itself as it has exclusive experiences both in software and video and will be unable to be played any other way. While I like 3D gaming/TV, but no new genres come out of it as it doesn't actually give any new modes of play. 3DTV is more analogous to b&w moving to Colour or moving to HDTV.

For those who say VR isn't social as you block out the world.... well neither is eSports as the player does everything in their power to already do that. If VR is half as successful as current day eSports then it's doing extremely well.

You watch exports with your friends like you would football. You do not have a VR experience in that environment.

Once 3D TV evolves into something that's natural, does not require you to put on anything else or view it from a certain angle, facilitates a social experience everyone can enjoy in the same room, that's the time 3D TV becomes a real medium. It may one day become a standard even. Your very own window to an immersive virtual world.

@Andy

The difficulty in producing glasses free TV is extreme. I think the most advanced models have five sweet spots, and in reality only the center three are decently sweet.

Holographic TV is the only thing I can see taking off