Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I don’t think it’s good for society. But what do I know.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney, VR/AR, and Apple's WWDC 2023
- Thread starter lentesta
- Start date
Yes I would expect it to be offered in various configurations, most likely storage. There are also the corrective lenses for glasses wearers, so that will be extra.
astronomical I would guess.
sedati
Well-Known Member
As someone who still uses his Quest 1, this looks astounding (though out of my price range for now). While it's not how I like to watch content on a first viewing, the App BIGSCREEN is astounding for watching shows and movies at home on the scale of a movie theater. I've gone back and watched all the Disney+ (the app works within the app) Star Wars content and loved seeing it as if in a theatre. I noticed so many details that I didn't on my 48" HD tv.
Youtube has great offerings as well. AirPano is a must- check out their video of the real Matterhorn. Many park goers are capturing video, but those shot in 3-D 180 are the best, but anything low-light is going to be pretty terrible.
As for games, I honestly hate going back to simple 2-D. Even with low graphic capabilities, I love the immersion and sense of discovery VR offers. I wish I could be playing Tears of the Kingdom in VR.
Also, yes, it's good exercise. Beat Saber is a workout. The dojo in Vader Immortal is so wonderful that once I finished it to the max with my right hand I did it over again with my left.
This thing was a lifesaver during Covid and I got my monies worth tenfold.
Youtube has great offerings as well. AirPano is a must- check out their video of the real Matterhorn. Many park goers are capturing video, but those shot in 3-D 180 are the best, but anything low-light is going to be pretty terrible.
As for games, I honestly hate going back to simple 2-D. Even with low graphic capabilities, I love the immersion and sense of discovery VR offers. I wish I could be playing Tears of the Kingdom in VR.
Also, yes, it's good exercise. Beat Saber is a workout. The dojo in Vader Immortal is so wonderful that once I finished it to the max with my right hand I did it over again with my left.
This thing was a lifesaver during Covid and I got my monies worth tenfold.
TheIceBaron
Well-Known Member
obviously they priced it at $3,499 for a reason, but not sure why the printer pricing model doesn’t work here (sell the printer for a loss and make the money on the ink). I think most of the money to be earned here is in the software.
I have an HTC Vive for my gaming PC and enjoy it but I can tell you the biggest problem with it is there just isn’t a lot of compelling VR content. There are hits of course like Half Life Alyx but gems like that are far and few between.
By Disney and a bunch of others jumping on this maybe we will actually see a substantial increase in VR content across the board. Thus far it just has been a little too enthusiast for mass market appeal.
I have an HTC Vive for my gaming PC and enjoy it but I can tell you the biggest problem with it is there just isn’t a lot of compelling VR content. There are hits of course like Half Life Alyx but gems like that are far and few between.
By Disney and a bunch of others jumping on this maybe we will actually see a substantial increase in VR content across the board. Thus far it just has been a little too enthusiast for mass market appeal.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's a matter of "no one wants it" - but "who is the audience that wants it and can afford it".
It's sort of the Starcruiser in that way, LOL.
That's an astronomical price for something that is essentially going to appeal as a single-player gaming device. And it's tough to see how media creators are going to be able to make games that can actually leverage this tech at the budgets they would take with what people expect to pay for games after buying such a device.
The media consumption part is pretty meh - if you can afford a $3500 headset, chances already have a massive TV, so those features are basically aimed at the Switch audience who shares a TV, who aren't going to even think about paying this kind of price point for it (and could just buy another TV for 1/10 the cost).
I want to say the corporate aspect might gain some traction - then again, I haven't heard many people say "gee I wish my zoom calls were right in my face and the visual quality so good I can see everyone's pores" or, "I wish my workscreen was right in my face all day".
It's amazing tech, and a neat product - with some really signifigant bells and whistles - but I just don't see a huge audience for it. I think it will be more like Apple Watch - it's not going to bring a lot of people new who doesn't already buy in this category. Apple Watch basically cannibalized the existing consumers of "Fit Bit" type devices, and the existing Apple die-hards, which are finite groups and why Apple doesn't tout the Watch sales numbers, even now. So given how much Facebook has struggled with VR in this market - and at a significantly less price point - how many of those will actually jump ship?
The real test will be the content, and I think people might be missing the fact that Disney didn't promise anything but Disney+ at launch. That's why this was much more of a symbolic partnership than anything else - everything other than that could turn out to be vaporware, for all we know. And to that "who's the audience" question, it's hard to see how having Disney+, like virtually every other device out there - is going to be a big day one selling point. I mean, who's going to buy them for each of their kids so they can sit and watch "Frozen" for the 77th time that month when they already have 1/2 a dozen devices in their house that do virtually the same thing.
This needs to have the killer app to kill all killer apps - and so far, I can't even think what that could be, not on a device at the price of a used car or an actual Disney vacation itself. Content is clearly going to be the make and break even if there is an audience for it out there, and the Apple walled-garden isn't going to help in this case, which prevents a larger market from taking advantage of this really impressive tech.
I'm sure it will sell out initially, people will be flipping them for twice the price, it will be the typical Apple FOMO FFA - but don't think this will become the VR standard, due to that walled-garden and the other factors. In five years I think we will look back and it's influence will be more what it spurs other companies to do, versus the market it ultimately captures itself. I could be totally wrong, but I just can't see a large audience who really is willing to spend this kind of money for a personal device like this.
It's sort of the Starcruiser in that way, LOL.
That's an astronomical price for something that is essentially going to appeal as a single-player gaming device. And it's tough to see how media creators are going to be able to make games that can actually leverage this tech at the budgets they would take with what people expect to pay for games after buying such a device.
The media consumption part is pretty meh - if you can afford a $3500 headset, chances already have a massive TV, so those features are basically aimed at the Switch audience who shares a TV, who aren't going to even think about paying this kind of price point for it (and could just buy another TV for 1/10 the cost).
I want to say the corporate aspect might gain some traction - then again, I haven't heard many people say "gee I wish my zoom calls were right in my face and the visual quality so good I can see everyone's pores" or, "I wish my workscreen was right in my face all day".
It's amazing tech, and a neat product - with some really signifigant bells and whistles - but I just don't see a huge audience for it. I think it will be more like Apple Watch - it's not going to bring a lot of people new who doesn't already buy in this category. Apple Watch basically cannibalized the existing consumers of "Fit Bit" type devices, and the existing Apple die-hards, which are finite groups and why Apple doesn't tout the Watch sales numbers, even now. So given how much Facebook has struggled with VR in this market - and at a significantly less price point - how many of those will actually jump ship?
The real test will be the content, and I think people might be missing the fact that Disney didn't promise anything but Disney+ at launch. That's why this was much more of a symbolic partnership than anything else - everything other than that could turn out to be vaporware, for all we know. And to that "who's the audience" question, it's hard to see how having Disney+, like virtually every other device out there - is going to be a big day one selling point. I mean, who's going to buy them for each of their kids so they can sit and watch "Frozen" for the 77th time that month when they already have 1/2 a dozen devices in their house that do virtually the same thing.
This needs to have the killer app to kill all killer apps - and so far, I can't even think what that could be, not on a device at the price of a used car or an actual Disney vacation itself. Content is clearly going to be the make and break even if there is an audience for it out there, and the Apple walled-garden isn't going to help in this case, which prevents a larger market from taking advantage of this really impressive tech.
I'm sure it will sell out initially, people will be flipping them for twice the price, it will be the typical Apple FOMO FFA - but don't think this will become the VR standard, due to that walled-garden and the other factors. In five years I think we will look back and it's influence will be more what it spurs other companies to do, versus the market it ultimately captures itself. I could be totally wrong, but I just can't see a large audience who really is willing to spend this kind of money for a personal device like this.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
That’s what’s odd about the naming convention here. In the past it seems like a beefed up “pro” version followed the entry level model. This is like backwards? Or maybe the proper comparison are gaming consoles, which have historically offered stripped down versions later in the system’s life cycle.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Apple knows their market far better than I do. That said, the barriers to entry for great VR headsets is pretty low as-is (mid to low $$s) with a decent install base, and still don’t know that we’ve reached that critical mass point.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think it’s more a recognition that just the components of this device are expensive and the use cases have not yet been wholly developed. They know this isn’t the true consumer product and it would be ridiculous to try and force that claim.
The iPhone 5C and iPhone SE were both offered as stripped down versions of the iPhone before the line split to have an iPhone Pro.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
This has been our biggest point of non-interest in these devices. DH and I have *terrible* vision. DH can't even buy his glasses at Costco anymore because the prescription is outside the range they service, so we have to go to an actual office optometrist and they were over $1K.
The one time we tried a headset, ages ago, it was difficult to get it to work with our glasses, and not comfortable. I presume it's better now, but I don't imagine too much thought has been given to people with really crappy normal vision, and they fall back on the "it will work for 90% of people."I am also expecting the ad-supported versions of these things. I'm sure people will love all the advertisements and product placements that are undoubtedly being planned.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
As for other uses, I'm wondering about commercial adoption. For example, if you are a wedding planning, interior designer, home improvement / furniture retailer, architect. Will these be useful to sell stuff. Render in much more detail what a space can be transformed into, or how an item might work in an existing space. That type of thing.
Rteetz
Well-Known Member
Absolutely will be beneficial to those professions. Think WDI with these visualizing spaces much like the DISH but even more so.
It does have a lot of potential. Maybe in 5 more years it will be worth it.
Just not worth paying the money to be an early adopter beta tester. Especially when in a few years it will probably be outdated.
CaptainMickey
Well-Known Member
This is why Iger just shut down the Galactic Starcruiser Hotel. He knew these were coming out. Now Disney will charge you $4000 to stay in the VIRTUAL Star Wars hotel for the weekend and just hand you a pair of goggles. 
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Those use cases already exist. Attractions in Orlando have used virtual reality in their design and development.
The problem though is that using a Quest or Vive is a bit of a hassle and clunky. A lot of offices aren’t going to have a dedicated virtual reality space where the equipment is set up. All of the input is through the controllers. Something like the Vision Pro seems to promise much faster setup for a variety of spaces so you could more easily bring the device to a client. The focus on augmented reality would also allow for projects, especially things like temporary events or renovations, to be seen within their actual location.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
Here's my thoughts:
Apple iPhone, Apple watch, and earbuds are all portable and take practically nothing extra to carry with you. This does not fit that bill in the current iteration.
The other question it will need to answer is: What can I do on this that I can't currently do on my iPhone/other smartphone. Yes, the theater experience idea is cool but that's been a thing for VR headsets for a while.
I also don't think it's clear that VR specifically is set up for this, it looks mostly AR. If it can do VR games and be compatible (or easily converted by publishers) to it, that will help.
The other major issue is...2 hour battery life? whew. Oh and also no physical controllers unless you're counting the PS5 controller.
Apple iPhone, Apple watch, and earbuds are all portable and take practically nothing extra to carry with you. This does not fit that bill in the current iteration.
The other question it will need to answer is: What can I do on this that I can't currently do on my iPhone/other smartphone. Yes, the theater experience idea is cool but that's been a thing for VR headsets for a while.
I also don't think it's clear that VR specifically is set up for this, it looks mostly AR. If it can do VR games and be compatible (or easily converted by publishers) to it, that will help.
The other major issue is...2 hour battery life? whew. Oh and also no physical controllers unless you're counting the PS5 controller.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
There is another thread to talk about Galactic Starcruiser.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
While I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate, I also would never buy a used Quest, either.
Last edited: