How marketable do you think this technology is compared to full VR? In my view, since this technology isn't fully immersive, it will have a lot more difficulty gaining traction (even though it is much cheaper)
RichardChen9
Yeah, plus as dedicated VR gets cheaper, there will be less reason to use something like google cardboard
bchee
@nebster100 What do you define as fully immersive? Google Cardboard has improved a lot since to now what is know as Daydream and also samsung's Gear VR is great as well. The resolution is still less than dedicated headsets. I think the only thing that is missing from the mobile VR platform is a 6 DOF controller system.
Pinbat
Low degrees of freedom (DoF) is what limits Google Cardboard and similar accessories. Not only is it not comfortable to use low DoF input schemes (moving your head a lot, pressing a button on the side of your headset), but it's extremely limiting for both users and developers as to what you can do.
The Quest is a major breakthrough and a step towards general consumer VR.
henryzxu
I believe Google Cardboard not so much a replacement for full VR as it as a way to expose VR to a large segment of the population via the incredibly low barrier to entry (you just need a smartphone). I've even received a set or two as promotional materials in the mail, so I would go so far as to say there probably isn't a marketing aspect from the perspective of profitability.
On a related note, Daydream and Gear VR are slightly different in the sense that they enhance the barebones Cardboard experience using a mix of hardware and software. To that extent, I've seen a number of people comment about the handheld nature of the traditional Cardboard in contrast to the headset nature of something like the Gear VR--the former is not meant to be used extensively.
Caozongkai
I have both Google cardboard, HTC Vive and Samsung Galaxy. And I am pretty sure that cardboard definitely have a worse experience. But the cost is so low that I think people should really tried it before consider buying a real one.
hershg
One interesting side effect of google cardboard/daydream type technologies is that you can directly see on the smartphone what your 2D screen is rendering in order to give your eyes the immersive VR perception. It basically looks like the smartphone screen is split in half, with each half looking like a "fish eye" lens of the scene in front of the virtual camera, with a minor difference in position for each eye (giving depth perception)
jeshlee121
Bought myself a google cardboard, but after the initial novelty wore off, it just doesn't seem to be great enough that I want to pick it up and play in it again.
/slides/slide-3.jpg)
How marketable do you think this technology is compared to full VR? In my view, since this technology isn't fully immersive, it will have a lot more difficulty gaining traction (even though it is much cheaper)
Yeah, plus as dedicated VR gets cheaper, there will be less reason to use something like google cardboard
@nebster100 What do you define as fully immersive? Google Cardboard has improved a lot since to now what is know as Daydream and also samsung's Gear VR is great as well. The resolution is still less than dedicated headsets. I think the only thing that is missing from the mobile VR platform is a 6 DOF controller system.
Low degrees of freedom (DoF) is what limits Google Cardboard and similar accessories. Not only is it not comfortable to use low DoF input schemes (moving your head a lot, pressing a button on the side of your headset), but it's extremely limiting for both users and developers as to what you can do.
The Quest is a major breakthrough and a step towards general consumer VR.
I believe Google Cardboard not so much a replacement for full VR as it as a way to expose VR to a large segment of the population via the incredibly low barrier to entry (you just need a smartphone). I've even received a set or two as promotional materials in the mail, so I would go so far as to say there probably isn't a marketing aspect from the perspective of profitability.
On a related note, Daydream and Gear VR are slightly different in the sense that they enhance the barebones Cardboard experience using a mix of hardware and software. To that extent, I've seen a number of people comment about the handheld nature of the traditional Cardboard in contrast to the headset nature of something like the Gear VR--the former is not meant to be used extensively.
I have both Google cardboard, HTC Vive and Samsung Galaxy. And I am pretty sure that cardboard definitely have a worse experience. But the cost is so low that I think people should really tried it before consider buying a real one.
One interesting side effect of google cardboard/daydream type technologies is that you can directly see on the smartphone what your 2D screen is rendering in order to give your eyes the immersive VR perception. It basically looks like the smartphone screen is split in half, with each half looking like a "fish eye" lens of the scene in front of the virtual camera, with a minor difference in position for each eye (giving depth perception)
Bought myself a google cardboard, but after the initial novelty wore off, it just doesn't seem to be great enough that I want to pick it up and play in it again.