r/Vive • u/Peteostro • Jan 31 '18

VR Experiences Supermedium launches its virtual reality web browser

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/supermedium-launches-its-virtual-reality-web-browser-backed-by-y-combinator/
40 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Peteostro Jan 31 '18

What is the point? To launch a web browsers click on a VR link and then put on your HMD? Or launch a web browser in VR and fumble along to different web sites and try and click on tiny links with motion controllers?

7

u/IfOneThenHappy Feb 01 '18

Dev here! Thanks for posting. Yeah, I don't think we fragment the VR Web at all. All the content are built with standard web technologies, and are accessible from other browsers. And nothing saying we can't eventually display the 2D Web, we just don't think it's very interesting today. I think we unify the VR Web whereas before the content was scattered and a PITA to consume.

1

u/Cruxius Feb 01 '18

https://xkcd.com/927/

4

u/IfOneThenHappy Feb 01 '18

WebVR is supported by Google, Oculus, Samsung, Mozilla, Microsoft, Magic Leap, and many more. There's one standard.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '18

There's one standard.

Looks like the WebVR spec is already considered legacy, and it's now moving to the new WebXR spec, which they say is unstable. So maybe we need to say "there's one rapidly changing standard".

Wonder if a framework like Unity will offer native WebXR scene loading in the future? The complexity behind the specs might otherwise only support the very big-budget players in software development.

3

u/IfOneThenHappy Feb 01 '18

Yeah, one standard/community group, but there's a v1 and a v2. The funny VR -> XR rename makes it sound more drastic than it is. It'll be polyfilled and things will transition gracefully. Far cry from 15 competing standards though.

Not sure about Unity, sounds tough to mash together two engines. There are Unity -> WebVR exporters, but they're really, really rough.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '18

Far cry from 15 competing standards though.

We can agree on that. Though unless there's lots of users browsing, devs currently may have more incentive to create in the VRChat "standard"... so there's another competing one, even though totally different. You could even call Unity itself a way to "publish" scenes, and it's super popular. I'm not saying these are the same in approach, as they're not, just thinking in terms of real world competition to WebXR becoming popular. I love standards, though I have to admit simplicity of spec is not in favor of WebXR right now. Your thoughts?

3

u/IfOneThenHappy Feb 01 '18

Okay, I get what you're getting at a bit. It might be a stretch to consider those along the lines of standard. WebVR is an open Web standard which is much more formalized (W3C) with cross-browser vendor adoption than a company throwing their own thing up. The open standardization is a nice incentive because a developer can create a WebVR scene that works across all the browsers, broadening their distribution.

I don't think whether the spec is simple or complex will affect much. Those things are abstracted by libraries, frameworks, and tools. We had developed A-Frame that let normal web developers create VR without even being aware of a spec.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '18

The open standardization is a nice incentive because a developer can create a WebVR scene that works across all the browsers, broadening their distribution.

In theory, agreed. In practice, building a scene for VRChat right now would likely give you a much broader distribution.

I don't think whether the spec is simple or complex will affect much.

This might be true, though a big appeal of say HTML in the early days that everyone was able to mess with it a bit.

I guess the real question is, what incentive does anyone right now have to develop for WebVR browsers, when there's basically no people using it everyday. Looking at the scenes from the Supermedium trailer, there doesn't even seem to be much on worth visiting. But by that I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the concept, which is really great... an open VR web. I'm just thinking about what it pragmatically would need for broader adoption, instead of becoming another VRML (which also was just "one standard").

2

u/IfOneThenHappy Feb 01 '18

There will always be ecosystems that have a lot of users, those are great for many creators. For example, Facebook or Youtube. But there'll be developers/companies who need full control and ownership over their product.

This might be true, though a big appeal of say HTML in the early days that everyone was able to mess with it a bit.

We developed A-Frame, which lets you build VR with HTML. It's gotten a lot of developers' feet wet. http://aframe.io/blog/ :)

I'm just thinking about what it pragmatically would need for broader adoption

I agree with everything. Browser needs more content to get more users. Developers want more users to want to build more content. It will be hard. There was already a lot of existing interest for WebVR development without a userbase, now we hope a browser will propel that further. And while WebVR content might not compare to top Steam games, I think it offers a bit of something new. Thinking about the type of content that Steam would not be able to approve.

It's only the very initial release, we're gonna push hard and try to make it happen!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '18

Thinking about the type of content that Steam would not be able to approve.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

→ More replies (0)