Oculus Rift Founder: Traditional TVs Will Be Dead In A Couple Of Decades

Will we still be surrounding large screens — watching movies together, playing video games — in 20 years time? Palmer Lucky, the founder of Oculus VR, says no. He believes that over the next couple of decades the humble TV will become irrelevant.

"I think there’s almost no way that traditional displays will be around in a couple of decade because it just won’t be feasible," he said. "Why in the world would you buy a 60-inch TV that, even if it worked dirt cheap for that it’s still gonna cost a lot to ship it, to make it from raw materials. Yeah, I mean a VR headset is gonna be much better and much cheaper and you can take it anywhere."

After the advent of 1080p resolutions, it seemed like the TV market was struggling to find the next 'big thing', that gimmick that would convince Joe Public to shell out on a brand new television. 3DTVs were a failure on most levels, and the latest gimmick? Another leap in resolution to 4K televisions. Time will tell if that drives a whole new wave of adoption. I suspect it might, in a couple of years at least.

I find it difficult to imagine a world where televisions don't exists. It's a social thing, it elicits a feeling that's existed since cavemen sat around campfires. As good as VR technology gets — and it's going to get very good — I don't see it ever completely supplanting the humble TV. We'll always have need of a device like this I think.




    I agree with him. Especially when the VR tech gets refined. They may even replace traditional mobile phones (yeah we laugh at Google Glass now, but lets see what happens).

    We’ll always have need of a device like this I think.

    *sings* video killed the radio star *sings*

    Last edited 15/04/14 9:23 am

    What a silly remark. Do you think your parents and grandparents are going to want to slip on a VR helmet everytime they want to watch the news or their favourite game show?

      No because they will be dead, but when we are "Grand parents" Yes i do. I think his timeline is spot on, in 20 years most of the dinosaurs will have kicked the bucket.

    Haha that will never happen.
    As cool as VR is, having a thing strapped to your face that completely blocks you off from the real world is just too awkward and a hassle for everyday use.
    You can't e

      Less than a century ago, if you asked anyone that people would spend the majority of their living existence in front of a screen that pumps out images, they'd have laughed at you.

      VR is happening and people will get hooked like they did with TVs, the Internet and mobile phones.

        You are neglecting the fact that each of these technologies you mentioned can enhance social interaction
        VR inhibits it in almost every way possible

        While VR will replace most other forms of entertainment for some, I dont see it becoming the all consuming beast that Palmer is trying to sell with his statement

        Its a case of "This is what I want, so everyone else must want it too"

          VR inhibits it in almost every way possible

          VR is just another method of accessing 'technologies that enhance social interaction'. Like accessing the net, playing multiplayer games, watching a TV show together (which in the future you can actively participate in more).

          Take multiplayer gaming. It used to be more social in that people got together at LAN parties or split screened with their friends. Now the majority is done online. That's what the 'social interaction' has become.

          People used to get together more in person to talk - now they do it on the phone or online.

          VR will be another way to interact with people. In a realistic future where everyone is hooked up to a VR world, from the comfort of their bedrooms.

            I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one

            My buddies and I strive to arrange a face-to-face LAN at every possible opportunity, even if we don't play together, we are together, as it is the proximity and loose free-for-all interactivity among friends that just cant be simulated.
            Text Chat is, by necessity, is read and ingested in a systematic order one line after another
            Voice chat simply becomes unintelligible as there simply is not enough audio channels available to handle a 4 way conversation if more than 1 person is talking at once

            I would much rather be in a real world where I can see and touch my partner, than to see a VR simulation of them

              You're still in the same physical place, capable of doing the same physical things. How you access the virtual world (currently your TV screen and the media it pumps out) just changes and gets enhanced.

              You may think people like me and @puck are crazy for saying this. We too have our reservations as to what this will do to future generations and how they interact with others. But it's an inevitable part of the future that we can't avoid regardless of how we feel about it now.

              Pandora's VR box has already been opened. What remains to be seen is how the future is shaped by it, but one thing's for sure, mainstream VR is inevitable.

                Im not disagreeing with you that mainstream VR is inevitable, I am however disagreeing that it will be a replacement technology, it will be a supporting technology.

                Many studies have shown that humans communicate via non-audible modes more than any other type of interaction, primarily visual, via things such as body language. If you take that primary input away you are placing an active barrier in the way of effective communication and interaction.

                Studies have also shown that the human brain absorbs a lot of information through the peripheral vision, any kind of VR, from the current bulky strap on face set, down to a theoretical contact lens will interfere with that periphery input starving the brain of the valuable stimulus that it uses to place 'value' on the memories that are being created.

                This brings us back to my earlier point of the 'experience' being 'hollow'
                Unless they discover a way to artificially stimulate the other 4 senses, any VR experience will, ultimately, be a cheap imitation of an actual experience

                  Many studies have shown that humans communicate via non-audible modes more than any other type of interaction, primarily visual, via things such as body language. If you take that primary input away you are placing an active barrier in the way of effective communication and interaction.

                  Virtual avatars and motion-capture, my friend!

            While I agree with you when it comes to gaming, I have to disagree with you when it comes to watching movies or TV. For many (if not the majority of) people, a lot of the enjoyment of watching movies and TV, it's the shared experience that's the enjoyable part.

              That's utter BS, if i watch a movie sitting next to someone on a tv it is 100% the same as if i sit next to them watching teh same movie on 2 headsets. We can still talk and hear each other, and depending on how the tech evolves probably see each other too.

                Two points to make here:
                1) Wearing a VR headset is not like a audio headset. The vision in VR is an exclusive medium. You can't glance over and watch other people's reactions. You lose all eye contact. That's a big part of the social experience.
                2) It's not UTTER BS. It's my opinion. This entire discussion is predicated on one person's opinion on what the fate of TVs will be in 10 years time. And everyone's opinions are just as valid and You need to grow up and accept that.

                Last edited 17/04/14 7:01 am

        Nah, even if 'VR glasses' were cheap and light, you have to have a set for everyone that wants to watch, and then what happens when friends come round.
        What about the kids that are too small to wear them? The comfort factor? Watching a movie when you also have a baby/kids you need to keep an eye on. etc. etc.
        VR is really immersive, that is the point. It is also its downside, it means you can't casually watch anymore, or see the reaction on your friends' faces when the Red Wedding happens and they didn't know what was coming.
        I'm all for VR, but a flat-screen or projector is still going to be the better casual viewing experience for a room full of people.

          What about the kids that are too small to wear them? The comfort factor? Watching a movie when you also have a baby/kids you need to keep an eye on. etc. etc.

          Dude, that's like saying "no way kids will ever be able to use these bulky mobile phones" 20 years ago.

          Now every 6 year old can carry an iPhone with them. It's the same thing. Technology evolves and gets refined to adapt to the masses.

            But what about one year olds who love watching Play School, but would attempt to eat any headset you give them? Sometimes you gotta keep the tech at arm's length.

        This argument is made difficult by the fact that “Virtual Reality” is such as stupid term.
        My TV is virtual reality, games on my phone are virtual reality, the painting on my wall is virtual reality.

        So if a TV shrinks into my glasses, becomes 3D (which it often is now), can be controlled by me (like games can be now)… does that mean that the Oculus Rift and it’s revolutionary “virtual reality” has became the successor of my television? I don’t see it that way.

        “Virtual Reality” as it stands now is unwieldy, socially awkward set of oversized goggles that very few normal people have any interest in wearing. It’s designed for a niche market of gamers and is more of an offshoot of traditional games than anything else.

        Honestly, I see Google Glass as the far more logical “successor” to the television. Useful, practical functionality predicated on being something that people can actually wear in a way that doesn’t limit the rest of their lives. When Google Glass type products get to the point that people are watching films and the like on them THEN you’ll see those products start being used for gaming and you might see a slow decline in wall-mounted television displays. It doesn’t mean the Oculus won’t play a part in that, more that they need to stop selling “virtual reality” to gamers and start selling practical functionality to the rest of the world first.

        The claim that virtual reality games are coming and that it’s going to take over your TV is like gamers in the 1980’s playing text-based adventure games and saying they were going to kill television. The technology to do it might be there one day but it’s a LONG way off and will ultimately be reached though a long series of small, practical steps that will advance the things everybody takes for granted (like watching TV, browsing the net and checking emails).

      It also get rids of social aspect of watching bad movies with others and making fun of how bad they are.

      You can't even really have a drink or food while it is on - you would knock the glass over trying to grope around for it half the time. And forget about interacting with anybody.
      Maybe in 20 years the technology will be at a point where it is not a hassle to use but replace TV's? No.

        VR probably will replace TV screens but not until it advances to holo deck style surrounds. Headset isn't going to do it and I have doubts that it will become anything more than a gimmicky toy.

        That said I don't begrudge Lucky saying it. He has a vested interest in the product and will do anything to talk it up and should do so. Doesn't mean we have to believe him.

        Remember everyone saying how the OUYA was going to change gaming forever? How's that doing?

    Can I sit down on the couch after a long workday, crack open a drink and chips and veg out then doze for an hour or two in front of something mindless while wearing a VR Headset?

    Can I prepare and cook a meal while wearing a VR headset to watch the news/drama/whatever is on?

    Can I pop my head around the corner into the living room to check what my daughter is watching without having to find the second VR helmet, find the cables/connecting devices, find out the batteries are flat etc?

    IMO, TV's aren't going away any time soon for the same reason that 3D TV didn't set the world on fire.

    I doubt it. Or hope not at least. Best thing in the world is lying on the couch with my wife in my arms watching a movie or TV show together. VR headsets would make that difficult and uncomfortable. Not to mention pointless.

      I think AR is tge way of the future so any blank wall could be your canvas/screen without obstructing the real world.

      imagine playing a shooting game with mates where the critters are jumping out from behind your own furniture.

    I disagree
    Watching TV etc is a social interaction that simply cant be obtained via a VR headset
    How can you snuggle on the couch with your significant other if you both have these headsets strapped to your face?
    I truly think that to even suggest it shows a worrisome insight to Palmer's character and how he values, or doesnt value, human interactions

      Can you imagine instead of watching a TV show about travel, you and your significant other can both experience what it's like to be there? To be 'teleported' into another part of the world? Take a virtual stroll down the beaches of Fiji?

      That's the future of VR. And you can still do that from your couch.

        you and your significant other can both experience what it's like to be there?

        But the "experience" would be a hollow one
        No tangible "moments" where you get that overwhelming feeling of love and affection for one another
        No holding hands, sneaky nuzzles or whispered sweet nothings

        The only other metaphor I could equate it to would be the difference between masturbation and adult consented sex between two people

        Yes it feels good, but ultimately, hollow

          But the "experience" would be a hollow one

          It's certainly more tangible than the so called 'social interaction' of Facebook or anything similar.

          You can still hug, hold hands, etc. Your physical location is no different to what it was when watching TV. You're both still on the couch, capable of doing exactly the same thing as when you were watching TV. Only now you can experience being in that location, instead of seeing an image of it on a TV screen.

          Also I wasn't talking about the experience of actually going on a holiday vs. doing it via VR. It's a given that being there in person is better. I was talking about enhancing the experience of watching TV.

          In the future you will be able to participate as characters in films. Travel to the locations and 'experience' them yourself, as opposed to just watching them on a screen.

          The future is nuts and VR is happening.

            Clearly we could to and fro all day regarding this issue
            I do agree that VR is coming, and that it has great potential, I don't agree that it is, nor will be, the be all and end all of entertainment that its being claimed

            VR gaming can never take away the TV.
            VR Gaming isok and all but it just does not appeal to a large enough audience. For starters, I hate the thought of VR gaming. It turns a social activity into an isolated activity.

            VR Gaming in 20 years time will still be just an Accessorie to gaming. We will still be using the controller and using Console with Games still being sold in disc form.

            I find it very stupid to buy a $1000 TV, then buy an oculus rift.

              1) Few technologies in their infancy appealed to a mass market. In fact, none probably did. Look at the history of the car, mobile phone, TV, computer, etc. It's the same with VR. It will grow until it inevitably becomes mainstream and every person will have access to it. One day people will look back and wonder how life must have been without VR.

              2) Online gaming, which is what most people now do (long gone are the days of LAN parties or split-screen gaming) aren't exactly 'social' are they? Besides, VR is just another way to experience those games, instead of a flat screen.

              I find it very stupid to buy a $1000 TV, then buy an oculus rift.

              If you read the article, he's talking about 20 years from now. Not today.

              A few people on this thread seem to be stuck thinking about the world today, not projecting themselves, society and future generations 20 years from now.

              Much the same way, 20 years ago most people wouldn't have been able to project themselves to 2014. If you asked people in 1994 that 20 years later they'd all be hooked to a social network, accessible at 20 mbps, while watching TV shows on their computers and talking to people 'face to face' on the other side of the planet from the comfort of their own couches, few would have believed you.

              You guys need to project yourself and society 20 years from now and take into account how much can change in that amount of time.

                You draw comparisons to technologies that have successfully integrated into modern life, but there's a greater chance (statistically speaking) that this particular technology will never grow beyond its niche.

                The first point in your reply seems like a non sequitur. Butcha is saying why he thinks it won't get mass market appeal, and your response is simply pointing out that other unrelated technologies won mass market appeal and that this will be the same, but without addressing butcha's reasoning or presenting an argument for why this particular technology will gain mass market appeal where others have failed.

                  I get what you mean, but this is one of those technologies that will gain mass appeal. All I was trying to point out is that the other successful technologies never had mass appeal to begin with either.

                  Also I probably didn't make it clear that it's not a technology I'm personally overly excited about or something I'd readily want to use.

                  I'm just predicting that this will be massive. On par with TVs, mobile phones, etc.

    They might not be replaced by just VR headsets. Think of a small projector that fits in your hand that could holographically produce that 60" display - once something like that is viable, bye bye TV in its current form.

    Do you have a rift? I do and using it requires toomuch effort and messing around for something as simple and casual as watching a show. Especially since all VR really ads to a passive watching experience is a greaterdegree of sensory deprivation.
    When VR gets so big that movies are designed for it (all first person etc) then sure, it will be viable. But not everything will be made like that even then.

      You're assuming that a VR headset will be just as unwieldy in 20 years time. What if the technology improved to the point that it was just like wearing a pair of glasses, and when you weren't watching something then they would just pass through the light, either by becoming transparent or from camera's mounted on the outside? One day in the future VR and AR (google glass type stuff) will merge and create a seamless bridge between the real and the virtual.

      It's really hard to imagine the form that future technology will take. If you'd said to a person using the first prototype rotary phone that one day everybody would walk around with them in their pocket, they'd laugh at you because phones require wires and they are way too heavy to carry around.

        Exactly this dude. It's precisely what I've been trying to tell people also.

        Check out the 'Ghent Lens', basically a contact lens with an LCD overlay. This is where it its all going. No headsets just a high def HUD for your world with a display as opaque or transparent as you like. No need for physical screens when everyone has a pair of these. The tech has a long way to go but I'd be surprised if UHD versions of these aren't freely available in 20 years. Add wireless network connectivity and an intuitive control interface and the world is a different place :) Nanotech FTW.

        "You're assuming that a VR headset will be just as unwieldy in 20 years time."

        It's still as unwieldy now as it was 20 years ago; I don't see any evidence that this will change in the future. The more powerful technology gets, the more people ask of it and the physical size and nature of it stays the same. I doubt there's going to be any miniaturisation of this tech in any foreseeable timeframe that greatly effects the size of what you wear on your head.

        I find it vastly entertaining that some people still think VR will go mainstream and takeover. We went through this 20 years ago, irregardless of the changes and advances in technology, the mass market consumers will not buy into a device that is essentially a social isolation tank.

        I was 'blown away' by VR in the 90s but it's a flawed technology in its application as any consumer based living-room item.

          And what if it is no longer a social isolation tank? Full-immersion VR cuts you off from reality, but there is a whole spectrum of Augmented Reality between this and something like Google Glass.

          In 20 years, it's quite possible that all you'll need is a lightweight pair of spectacles (or contact lenses) that are fully transparent except when you look in the direction of your virtual TV. You'll still see everything and everyone around you, but the glasses can add to your environment without taking anything away. Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End is an interesting take on what this might be like.

          I played Dactyl Nightmare 20 years ago. The Virtuality hardware then was ridiculously bulky compared to my Oculus Rift. There's no reason to suppose it won't continue to shrink, like everything else.

          Last edited 16/04/14 5:22 pm

            I wear glasses almost all the time (usually even in bed) and generally don't notice them. (You may have heard stories about people who went looking for their glasses only to realise they were wearing them. That's happened to me.) A VR headset along such lines would be wearable 24/7. However, I'm not sure that would work for VR as there's too much leakage around the edges. Contacts have other issues.

            I don't think I agree that traditional TV is on its way out. The plain fact is, there are advantages to *not* being fully immersed. Try eating your dinner while wearing VR glasses. Or keeping an eye out for a baby. My parents and sister have a habit of leaving the TV on essentially to provide background noise.

            I don't doubt that VR will have its place in the world going forward, but it will supplement, not replace, the existing tech.

              Oh sure, there will always be a place for flat screens, just like there's still a place for horses. Only question is to what degree will VR and AR supplement and/or replace them.

              For games and some movie cases, full-immersion VR would be preferred, but this is likely always going to be a relatively niche case. For shared-space experiences AR would be better, where only a small part of the joint reality is augmented, or only some of the time. If convenient enough, this might be very common.

              Obviously nobody will be wandering around the house with a full-VR Oculus Rift on, but if AR glasses were as convenient as your sunglasses or prescription glasses are, and could range from 90-degree FoV full replacement, to adding an object to your view, to a simple HUD, to nothing at all as desired - then it might be as common as phones are now.

    If we don't have TVs, what will we point all our furniture at?

      I don't have a tv, we point the furniture at the other furniture, and we 'talk'.

        That will never catch on.

        Anyway, talking to your furniture is weird.

      What did people do with their furniture before TVs existed? They arranged them into a mildy pleasing fashion. As for virtual reality; this technology and its capabilities is only in its inception right now. Only time will tell where this will lead to.

    I don't think we'll be strapping things to our face in the future. Maybe we'll be beaming images directly to our eyeballs that looks like some sort of floating TV in front of your face (Like the Dead Space hud but in colour!) so you're not completely cut off from the outside world, with an option to go full screen for virtual reality.

    Nah. I agree Mark, TV is a social thing. We sit around the object and interact with it as much as each other.

    Some people might decide to live inside VR headsets but it won't be the norm. If that's what he means by "traditional TV" then he's wrong. What's more likely is we'll have lightweight and flexible displays that can be rolled up and posted in a cardboard tube. That'll eliminate the need for expensive packaging and reduce the shipping costs to be on par with his OverhypeOculus Rift.

    Last edited 15/04/14 9:40 am

    People are missing the point. This is the start of VR technology. It's like going back in time and seeing the first television set. Bulky, unrefined and by today's standards, completely shit.

    This technology will evolve. It will become smaller, lighter, more advanced. Eventually the bulky glasses you're seeing today will morph into things like contact lenses or light-weight glasses that will replace your mobile phone, TV and other devices.

    Would you have used one of the bulky first-generation mobile phones? Probably not. Would you have ever imagined that they will one day be tiny super computers that everyone will carry in their pockets. Probably not.

    Every piece of technology evolves and morphs into something that's significantly different to the first units that hit the market. This is no different.

    The world will move to VR and that's inevitable.

      Exactly. You're not going to be "strapping something to your face", it will just be as seamless as putting on a pair of glasses. I think people are imagining a future where everybody is sitting on the couch wearing a bulky Oculus Rift Prototype plugged into a computer. :D

      20 years is a long time, especially with the accelerated advancement of technology, though I'm not sure if it's actually enough time to make TVs obsolete. But it will happen eventually, there's no doubt about that in my mind.

        Indeed. I actually think that years down the track, we'll end up bypassing the eye completely and tap straight into our brains. I mean the eye is just a receptor of light which is converted to electrical impulses. One day we'll figure out how to bypass that and send the impulses straight to the brain.

        You'll be able to 'see' things and experience things that today seem like trippy Sci-Fi ideas.

          You know, I was thinking about exactly this on my walk this morning. When that tech becomes available, do they implant it at birth, or wait until you're 18. Is it even an implant, or could they effect the neurons from an external (easily upgradable) device? And if so, could that allow malicious use of hacking in and altering another person's senses against their will? If the experience is realistic enough, and there's no reason to believe it can't be with direct access to the sensory neurons, how will you know when you've truly exited the game? Will it create a movement of nutjobs who think that the real world is just a simulation and cause a crisis of confidence in reality?

          What would the app store look like for that? Could you buy other people's experiences? Imagine the potential for pornography.

          What about news? There's a riot/war/tsunami happening somewhere? Quick, log in to somebody who's actually there and publicly casting and see what's happening right now.

          If it actually manages to progress to that stage, humanity will never be the same again. DUM DUM DAAAA! (dramatic music)

            It's as if they somehow tapped into both of our brains because that's exactly the stuff I was thinking about too. :D

        It doesn't matter how refined it is, you could beam the images directly into my brain for all I care, and that tech WILL exist eventually. My point is that for the foreseeable future, certainly longer than "a couple of decades" entertainment is still going to include watching things communally and interacting with each other. Cutting yourself off from all external stimuli works well for some kinds of immersive entertainment but that is not the only form of entertainment. Now you can use VR to replicate that experience too, once it's good enough, but it won't be the same.

          I think you're probably right about it being longer than a couple of decades. But I don't think it's necessary that it will be a non-communal activity. When you play games with your friends online, that's a community activity - what if you could see their faces as if they were actually there?

          People used to gather around the wireless radio, now we do it around the TV. Why can't we all still gather on the couch, legs draped over each other and still share a virtual experience together? Unlike TV, you're family/friends would be in the virtual world with you.

          For me personally, when I watch TV, I don't consider it to be "spending time" with someone. I want to talk to a person, share a meal, an activity, or even share the washing up or other chores. TV blocks off conversation - a shared VR experience wouldn't have to.

            I've always seen TV watching as being one of the least social things I do with people. Perhaps my definition of 'social' is different to others though.

      WTF is wrong with you and many others.
      VR gaming will never become the Norm.
      I know hundreds of people in real life and I honestly dont know anyone of my generation who are interested in VR Gaming.

      For something to become a norm then it needs to have the demand.

      Yes VR gaming will evolve, but once it gets to that point where VR gaming is a pair of glasses, how expensive do you think it will be? cause it wont be cheap and could cost as much as a console.

      But when Mobile Phones came out, the public knew they were gonna get smaller and better phones in the future. Its normal for a human being to know that tech improves, its common sense.

      But the world wont move to VR Gaming. Its unrealistic and the Public dont want VR gaming to be gaming.
      IF VR Gaming becomes the norm, expect the Industry to start truggling. Gaming is social, then to have a peice of tech take everything social away from gaming, will not sit well with a large portion of gamers. I know Id quit gaming if I could only use VR for gaming.

        I honestly dont know anyone of my generation who are interested in VR Gaming

        Enough said.

        But when Mobile Phones came out, the public knew they were gonna get smaller and better phones in the future.

        No they didn't. In the same way that when Ford Model T came out, people didn't know that they'll get cars with ABS, cruise control and the ability to go 200 km/h.

        Also what's 'wrong' with us, is that we're capable of projecting society into the future and not just looking at what we do/like in the present.

        Last edited 15/04/14 11:02 am

    If the TV does become obsolete, I think it will go towards projectors rather than VR. Look at Microsoft's Illumiroom and tell me that's not cooler than VR.
    Don't actually tell me because I don't care.

    Oh man.. TV's will be dead again? Just like last time that was predicted for around.... now?

    VR technology is going to have to change radically in the next decade or so for this to even be feasible. At the moment, to do anything other than watch TV, you would need to take the headset off, go do what you want then come back and put the headset back on. If you wanted to keep an eye on what's going on, you'd need to carry the headset with you and put it on every so often. Without VR, you just get up, do what you want and glance over at the TV if you want to keep track of what's going on. Ironically though, you could set up the VR in such a way that you recreate your environment and have a virtual TV showing in the room.

    To be honest, VR seems like it's well suited for augmenting the viewing experience, not replacing it. How we view things will definitely change over the next few decades and I think a Glass-like device is going to be the more likely candidate, not VR. You also have to take a grain of salt with anything the guy who invented the technology he's trying to push says.

      To be honest, VR seems like it's well suited for augmenting the viewing experience, not replacing it. <---- This. Practicality mixed in with vision. Probably a more accurate prediction of what we'll see with VR over the next few years as opposed to having it drown out TV's completely.

    Sure, but the issues of not being able to interact with the real world while the movie is running would remain.
    The solution I guess would be to have a AR simulated theatre that conforms to your physical surrounds. Though then you are talking about more than a headset - you would need kinect style sensors rigged up around the room and such, with the devices linked to one another for interaction with others in that space (avatars, synching of the movie etc).
    I have

      Why must you do this phone.
      Do you have me that much?

    Maybe in a 'google glass' kind of way, but the total immersion is basically just too dangerous a way to watch TV. Anything could be happening in your room and you wouldn't know it.

    It was way back in 1992 that Arthur C Clarke said "Virtual Reality won't merely replace TV. It will eat it alive."
    It felt like that at the time, but I think flat panel TVs or projectors will be with us for a very, very long time.
    Even if VR glasses were only $50 each, I'd still need a set for everyone in the room, so when friends come over, little kids that can't wear them etc.
    All this and VR is actually too immersive.

      I think the end goal is for VR and AR to merge together into a pair of lightweight glasses that literally everybody wears which can augment your vision and completely encompass it if you desire that experience.

      If the future Luckey predicts is that people will strap on VR headsets when it's "entertainment time" then I completely agree with you that it's not going to be desirable for most people. But if everybody wears these VR/AR glasses the way everybody carries a phone these days, then I can see a future where most houses don't have TVs in them.

      I guess it depends on how seamless and user-friendly the technology can eventually become.

    ...but the total immersion is basically just too dangerous a way to watch TV. Anything could be happening in your room and you wouldn't know it.

    You mean like this: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/04/father-let-son-die-while-he-played-online-games/

    And it's not even 2034. :P

    While I agree that VR has tremendous potential I don't see it supplanting a traditional "TV screen" setup personally given I do all my TV watching either with friends or family. I mean really half the fun with watching tv shows or movies on the screen is sharing and commenting on the experience with the people around you.

    Can you imagine going to a pub to watch the Grand Final and walking in to see a bunch of people with screens strapped to their face, screaming and spilling beer all over it? The future is gonna be hilarious!!

    Sounds like a try at hyping people to buy his Facebook VR device

    The TVs will just be inside the VR... Virtual livingroom!

    As stated by many, I don't see this replacing TVs as a whole. However I can imagine sitting on a couch in a tiny room with a mate watching a movie on a 140" - 200" (choose to watch it on an 80's big screen TV). Sitting in the star ship enterprise, a beach, an empty theatre (choose your theme) and able to look to my side and interact with my mate. Something along those lines would help in social interaction with a VR headset.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now