VR Arcades and Location Based Entertainment

vr_arcade.jpg

Consider this core argument by Ben Kim from Survios in this presentation from December 2017:

  • there is high demand in the market for VR content

  • there is low demand in the market for VR hardware

The data? Survios has sold VR game content to over 1 million unique users. 85% of the content they sold was consumed by a user in a VR arcade. According to Ben, there are 612 VR arcades globally as of December 2017. That’s more than Chuck E. Cheese’s (523) and Dave & Buster’s (82).

I recently experienced Notes On Blindness: Into Darkness via my Oculus Rift. It was stunning. A complete game-changer. I've spoken to dozens of people about it. They would love to see/experience it. But they don't have the hardware. And they don't want to buy the hardware to watch/experience this one thing.

What to do?

Until standalones like Go or Santa Cruz take off, there's going to be this gulf between people that want VR experiences but don't want VR hardware.

So why limit location based entertainment to VR arcades? Why not VR cinemas? VR play spaces? VR experience zones?

Wonderspaces is kind of/sort of doing this now.

I see this as a new market.

VR Film at Sundance Marks Major Milestone

BlackHoleMerge_1_HD.jpg

 A new VR film that premiered at Sundance was acquired in a seven-figure deal.

"In an unprecedented move, VR financing and distribution venture CityLights announced today that it is acquiring Spheres—a three-part series that lets viewers explore the depths of space in VR—in a massive seven-figure deal. Neither side is revealing the exact figure, but for a medium that’s never sold at Sundance, it’s still a very big deal, and one that demonstrates VR filmmaking has the clout and buzz of its traditional film predecessors."

Details here from Wired.

New Report Shows Declining Interest in VR Gaming

Screen Shot 2018-01-28 at 8.36.51 AM.png

A newly-released survey from GDC -- Game Developer Conference -- revealed interest in VR for game developers is down slightly from previous years. Of the nearly 4,000 developers surveyed, 19% said their current game will be released on VR headsets. But when asked what platform(s) they expected their next game would be released on, only 17% said VR headsets.

More pointedly:

"For the third year in a row, the survey asked respondents whether they believe VR/AR is a long-term, sustainable business, and for the first time, the 2018 survey sees a rise in the number of “No” answers. In the past two years, the responses to that question were roughly 75% “Yes” to 25% “No.” However, this year, 71% of respondents said “Yes” and 29% said “No,” they don’t see VR/AR as a sustainable business."

So is this an alarming trend? A harbinger of doom?

I don't think so. Rather, I see this as consistent with what the market has clearly expressed. The market does not want (1) a tethered experience, (2) a high-end gaming PC to run the experience, (3) a complex sensor set-up, and (4) high cost. Hardware manufacturers get it. That's why Oculus is releasing their new standalone VR headset later this quarter, the Oculus Go. That's why Oculus is working on an even more powerful standalone device, code-named "Santa Cruz." That's why HTC has a standalone device for sale in China right now the Vive Focus. And while the Go will only allow for 3 degrees of freedom (3 DoF), the Focus allows for full-body, room-scale 6 degrees of freedom (6 DoF) with (1) no tether, (2) no high-end gaming PC to run the experience, (3) no external sensors, for only (4) $600 US dollars. The only downside: it's only available in China right now. But expect to have a standalone from HTC in the US market soon. And then there's Lenovo, which recently announced the first self-contained VR headset based on Google’s Daydream platform, called the Lenovo Mirage Solo. Price? Under $400 US dollars. Available in Q2 of this year.

Did the GDC survey ask about standalone devices? Nary. A. Word.

Is that a glaring oversight? Perhaps. But it could also testify to this simple fact: folks aren't aware of standalones. Not even developers. And that in itself is a problem: developers need to know about these devices because we depend on the developer community to make compelling stuff. So while the "build it and they will come" mantra may prove to be true, you have to know what to build. But more importantly, you have to know what to build it on.

Virtual Reality Sandboxes: The Ideal Instructional Design Paradigm?

Picture this: you’re 3 years old and you’re sitting in a sandbox. You have a plastic bucket, a shovel, and access to water. You’re in heaven. I suspect that as long as there have been children and sandboxes, the two have made rather ideal companions. Why is that?

Sandboxes are places to play. Children love to play. So the sandbox becomes a mechanism through which children can achieve satisfaction by doing what they love to do. More specifically, sandboxes are

  • arenas that allow for and promote active exploration

  • within the context of a bounded environment

  • with very few rules for how things should be done.

What’s magical about sandboxes: they’re both free and constrained at the same time. There are no rules for how things should be done, but there are certain limitations about what is possible. So the joy comes in the conflict between these two forces:

  1. total creative freedom vs the physical boundaries of the sandbox itself

  2. the ability to make anything with sand vs the inherent limitations of sand

I see this exact phenomenon in some of my favorite VR apps:

·     Universe Sandbox

·     Google Earth VR

·     You VR

Universe Sandbox is the absolute quintessence of this phenomenon. Heck, look at its name! The creators describe it this way:

“Universe Sandbox is a physics-based space simulator. It merges gravity, climate, collision, and material interactions to reveal the beauty of our universe and the fragility of our planet. Create, destroy, and interact on a scale you've never before imagined.”

Watch any kid in a sandbox and you’ll see a whole bunch of creating and destroying going on.

When I first sat in the Universe Sandbox, I assumed God-like omnipotence and hovered over the Earth, gazing down at its majesty. I got to pose a rather interesting question: what would happen if Earth had two moons, not just one? So I created another moon, threw it into orbit around the Earth, and watched the disastrous consequences: the two moons collided and then crashed into Earth, utterly destroying the planet. I witnessed this in extraordinarily vivid detail while this hauntingly beautiful music played in the background – a mix between a requiem and new age synthesizers.

 Universe Sandbox

Universe Sandbox

And then a rather unexpected thing happened: I started to cry. I wasn’t just watching any old planet being destroyed. I was watching my planet – our planet – being destroyed. I wasn’t gazing down on its majesty. I was gazing down on our majesty. There’s little difference between humans and the planet we inhabit. As Carl Sagan observed, “The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” I am made of the same things the Earth is made of. So in watching its death, I was watching our death.

Google Earth VR provides a similar kind of God-like omnipotence. But instead of being bounded by the universe, this sandbox is constrained within the confines of Earth itself. What do most people do when they first enter the Google Earth VR sandbox? They go home. So that’s what I did. I went back to the place I grew up when I was a kid, back to that tiny little town in southeast Georgia.

 My boyhood home.

My boyhood home.

I hovered above the town, flew right above the house where I was raised, and dropped down into the front yard. And there I was, standing in front of the house where I grew up.

And there they were again: those tears. Flooded with an ocean of memories, I looked around behind me and saw my neighbor’s house – the basketball hoop still there, the small apple tree now grown so large, the driveway giving way to moss and neglect.

I was there. And yet, of course, I wasn’t really there. But, then again, I kind of was. Another curious contradiction within VR and a rich source of creative tension: that you can “literally” do things, but you aren’t literally doing any of these things. So you can “literally” be in front of the house where you grew up and yet not literally be in front of the house where you grew up at the same time. You can “literally” step into the shoes of another person and experience what it’s like to be them, but you can’t literally step into the shoes of another person and experience what it’s like to be them. Makes no sense. And that’s part of what makes it so fun.

I find myself frequently going back into Google Earth VR to travel to places I’ve never been. I stood on top of Mt. Everest, visited a busy market in Syria, stood under the Bridge of Sighs in Venice. Went back to the hospital where I was born, visited the school in Japan where I taught English, hovered above Hong Kong, stood and looked up at the tallest building in the world. Every time I enter this sandbox, I’m excited about what I’ll discover.

The last sandbox -- You VR -- is constrained within the confines of the human body. And while it doesn’t offer as much unbounded freedom as the other two sandboxes, it nevertheless provides an extraordinary range of possibility. I stood inside a healthy beating heart, adjusted the beats per minute, and watched the ventricles expand and contract at ever-increasing speeds. I then switched the view and saw what an unhealthy heart looks like and how the ventricles behave.

 You VR

You VR

I jumped out of the heart and popped into the brain. In front of me was a massive brain, easily three feet long by two feet high. I “literally” – here we go again – stuck my head inside this massive brain and was able to see the various brain structures hidden beneath. It was incredibly fun to move my head back and forth between just outside the brain and then deep within it. I was laughing and chortling with glee as I did so. I recently observed what a malignant tumor looks like and was able to position it in various places in the body, observing it in all its 3D horror. It looked ugly. And dangerous. And deadly.

So what do I take away from these three sandbox experiences?

It’s not just the thrill of play and the joy of discovery, but also the strong emotions these experiences conjured: the feeling of connection to the Earth via Universe Sandbox, the flood of memories from Google Earth VR, and the stark horror of a malignant tumor from You VR. I never expected VR to be so moving, so emotionally engaging.

Don’t get me wrong: I've experienced lots of crap in VR. Being "immersed" is not inherently valuable. For example, I took a tour of the human body -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbS0IwluIeI -- and was talked at just like I would be as a passive learner at the effect of yet another Death By PowerPoint. But I've also experienced magical, transformational VR that leverages the unique capabilities of VR.

 xpereal is partnering with organizations now to produce the empirical data to corroborate these claims and to better identify the precise difference that VR makes and what the optimal implementations are.

Discovery learning and unstructured learning got a bad rap since Jerome Bruner introduced it in the 60's. But what might these new tools add to this discourse? Might we find a new way to engage students in experiences that tap into their childhood fascination with play? Might we find ourselves back in those sandboxes from long ago?