recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : oculusrift   7

Ethan Zuckerman: Solving Other People's Problems With Technology - The Atlantic
"In other words, is it possible to get beyond both a naïve belief that the latest technology will solve social problems—and a reaction that rubbishes any attempt to offer novel technical solutions as inappropriate, insensitive, and misguided? Can we find a synthesis in which technologists look at their work critically and work closely with the people they’re trying to help in order to build sociotechnical systems that address hard problems?

Obviously, I think this is possible — if really, really hard — or I wouldn’t be teaching at an engineering school. But before considering how we overcome a naïve faith in technology, let’s examine Snow’s suggestion. It’s a textbook example of a solution that’s technically sophisticated, simple to understand, and dangerously wrong."

"The problem with the solutionist critique, though, is that it tends to remove technological innovation from the problem-solver’s toolkit. In fact, technological development is often a key component in solving complex social and political problems, and new technologies can sometimes open a previously intractable problem. The rise of inexpensive solar panels may be an opportunity to move nations away from a dependency on fossil fuels and begin lowering atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, much as developments in natural gas extraction and transport technologies have lessened the use of dirtier fuels like coal.

But it’s rare that technology provides a robust solution to a social problem by itself. Successful technological approaches to solving social problems usually require changes in laws and norms, as well as market incentives to make change at scale."

"Of the many wise things my Yale students said during our workshop was a student who wondered if he should be participating at all. “I don’t know anything about prisons, I don’t have family in prison. I don’t know if I understand these problems well enough to solve them, and I don’t know if these problems are mine to solve.”

Talking about the workshop with my friend and colleague Chelsea Barabas, she asked the wonderfully deep question, “Is it ever okay to solve another person’s problem?”

On its surface, the question looks easy to answer. We can’t ask infants to solve problems of infant mortality, and by extension, it seems unwise to let kindergarten students design educational policy or demand that the severely disabled design their own assistive technologies.

But the argument is more complicated when you consider it more closely. It’s difficult if not impossible to design a great assistive technology without working closely, iteratively, and cooperatively with the person who will wear or use it. My colleague Hugh Herr designs cutting-edge prostheses for U.S. veterans who’ve lost legs, and the centerpiece of his lab is a treadmill where amputees test his limbs, giving him and his students feedback about what works, what doesn’t, and what needs to change. Without the active collaboration with the people he’s trying to help, he’s unable to make technological advances.

Disability rights activists have demanded “nothing about us without us,” a slogan that demands that policies should not be developed without the participation of those intended to benefit from those policies.

Design philosophies like participatory design and codesign bring this concept to the world of technology, demanding that technologies designed for a group of people be designed and built, in part, by those people. Codesign challenges many of the assumptions of engineering, requiring people who are used to working in isolation to build broad teams and to understand that those most qualified to offer a technical solution may be least qualified to identify a need or articulate a design problem. This method is hard and frustrating, but it’s also one of the best ways to ensure that you’re solving the right problem, rather than imposing your preferred solution on a situation."

"It is unlikely that anyone is going to invite Shane Snow to redesign a major prison any time soon, so spending more than 3,000 words urging you to reject his solution may be a waste of your time and mine. But the mistakes Snow makes are those that engineers make all the time when they turn their energy and creativity to solving pressing and persistent social problems. Looking closely at how Snow’s solutions fall short offers some hope for building better, fairer, and saner solutions.

The challenge, unfortunately, is not in offering a critique of how solutions go wrong. Excellent versions of that critique exist, from Morozov’s war on solutionism, to Courtney Martin’s brilliant “The Reductive Seduction of Other People’s Problems.” If it’s easy to design inappropriate solutions about problems you don’t fully understand, it’s not much harder to criticize the inadequacy of those solutions.

What’s hard is synthesis — learning to use technology as part of well-designed sociotechnical solutions. These solutions sometimes require profound advances in technology. But they virtually always require people to build complex, multifunctional teams that work with and learn from the people the technology is supposed to benefit.

Three students at the MIT Media Lab taught a course last semester called “Unpacking Impact: Reflecting as We Make.” They point out that the Media Lab prides itself on teaching students how to make anything, and how to turn what you make into a business, but rarely teaches reflection about what we make and what it might mean for society as a whole. My experience with teaching this reflective process to engineers is that it’s both important and potentially paralyzing, that once we understand the incompleteness of technology as a path for solving problems and the ways technological solutions relate to social, market, and legal forces, it can be hard to build anything at all.

I’m going to teach a new course this fall, tentatively titled “Technology and Social Change.” It’s going to include an examination of the four levers of social change Larry Lessig suggests in Code, and which I’ve been exploring as possible paths to civic engagement. The course will include deep methodological dives into codesign, and will examine using anthropology as tool for understanding user needs. It will look at unintended consequences, cases where technology’s best intentions fail, and cases where careful exploration and preparation led to technosocial systems that make users and communities more powerful than they were before.

I’m “calling my shot” here for two reasons. One, by announcing it publicly, I’m less likely to back out of it, and given how hard these problems are, backing out is a real possibility. And two, if you’ve read this far in this post, you’ve likely thought about this issue and have suggestions for what we should read and what exercises we should try in the course of the class — I hope you might be kind enough to share those with me.

In the end, I’m grateful for Shane Snow’s surreal, Black Mirror vision of the future prison both because it’s a helpful jumping-off point for understanding how hard it is to make change well by using technology, and because the U.S. prison system is a broken and dysfunctional system in need of change. But we need to find ways to disrupt better, to challenge knowledgeably, to bring the people they hope to benefit into the process. If you can, please help me figure out how we teach these ideas to the smart, creative people I work with—people who want to change the world, and are afraid of breaking it in the process."
technology  technosolutionism  solutionism  designimperialism  humanitariandesign  problemsolving  2016  ethanzuckerman  design  blackmirror  shanesnow  prisons  socialchange  lawrencelessig  anthropology  medialab  courtneymartin  nutraloaf  soylent  codesign  evgenymorozov  olcp  wikipedia  bias  racism  empathy  suziecagle  mitmedialab  mit  systems  systemsthinking  oculusrift  secondlife  vr  virtualreality  solitaryconfinement  incarceration  change  changemaking  ethnography  chelseabarabas  participatory  participatorydesign 
july 2016 by robertogreco
11 video game trends that will change the future of the industry | Technology | The Guardian
"1. VR with friends rather than alone

2. Physically collaborative games

Virtual reality and its experimental tech contemporaries are exploring new ways to incorporate the body as more than just an anchor to the physical world. As Ghislaine Boddington, creative director of body>data>space, noted in her talk on virtual reality and the “internet of bodies”, the hope for the future is in recognising and augmenting physical bodies in games and play. She offers technologies like programmable gels used with the body in more intimate ways, such as rubbing “gels on to erogenous zones”, allowing partners to “connect together at a distance”.

Boddington also noted the future of physically collaborative and increasingly social spaces in AR, as seen in the very popular Pokémon Go: “Pokémon Go is definitely a collaborative share space. The Pokémon Go site, along with many others, allow the individual to join with the group into the middle, both in a physical and a virtual way.”

Implications of the physical are vast, as Robin Hunicke, co-founder and creative director of Funomena (Woorld, Luna) and previously of thatgamecompany (Journey), noted on the psychological impact of VR brought about by gestural controls, and recognising the capacity of range of movement from players. What does it mean for a player, psychologically, to encourage them to stand tall and strike a powerful pose? What might it mean to force them into a crouched position, to feel small? The necessity of an embodied experience in VR also brings up new questions, such as what the platform offers by way of accessibility.

3. The future of augmented reality

Pokémon Go came to the UK on the third and last day of the conference, and it felt like everyone in Brighton was catching Magikarp and Shellder and Seel and all the other water Pokémon the seaside town had to offer. Had this international hit been available a little earlier, the conference schedule would surely have contained a few more panels about augmented reality. Whether we can expect to see an AR-heavy Develop 2017 will depend on whether Pokémon Go represents the start of a new trend, or if it’s simply a one-off success carried by an already successful brand.

Ismail thinks the latter. When asked what he would do with Pokémon Go, he said that he would sell it, and that it hasn’t proven anything about AR itself. “We’re seeing a lot of discussion right now about whether AR just beat VR, and I think that would be a very wrong statement. Like, Pokémon beat VR, that’s for sure, but I guess Pokémon beat everything at the moment. Pokémon beat Tinder and Twitter, which is a big deal.”

Hunicke might not be looking to make the next Pokémon Go, but she’s still interested in the potential of augmented-reality games that “make the world more silly and joyful, and less logical”. One of Funomena’s upcoming games, Woorld, is described as “a hand-held Alternative Reality experience”, a “whimsical, exploratory application” that lets you place virtual objects against the backdrop of your physical environment. Created in collaboration with Google, with art from Keita Takahashi (Katamari Damacy, Noby Noby Boy), this colourful augmented-reality game and sandbox will be available on devices that include Google’s new AR-enabling platform Tango, like the upcoming Lenovo Phab2 Pro.

4. Incremental console updates …

5. The next step for mobile: TV …

6. Sayonara, Steam: the rise of specialised stores

The number of games on Steam is on the rise, and with it, the number of games that go unplayed or unnoticed. Nearly 37% of all registered Steam games go unplayed , and it’s no secret that many indie games – even good, critically acclaimed games – get lost amid a sea of other green lit games.

In light of this, smaller more specialised distribution services are becoming more important., an “indie game marketplace and DIY game jam host” is already hugely popular in the indie scene, offering pay-what-you-want and minimum-pricing models. Just last year, Itch’s co-founder Leaf Corcoran revealed in a blog post about the site’s finances that they had paid out $393,000 to developers. Since then, the platform has only grown and it’s likely that we’ll see more specialised distributors following Itch’s model.

7. The rise of indie studios …

8. Rejecting crunch

Crunch, ie mandatory (and often unpaid) overtime in the weeks or months leading to a game’s release, has long been an issue for this industry. More than a decade since Erin Hoffman wrote about her husband’s experiences of unpaid overtime when working for EA, in an originally anonymous blog post known at the time as “EA Spouse”, crunch is still commonplace in studios of all sizes, and people are still fighting it.

At this year’s Develop, Machine Studios (Maia) founder Simon Roth gave a talk called “Killing the Indie Crunch Myth: Shipping Games Alive”, which began tweet:
People who support crunch are going against 100+ years of data and science. They are the flat earthers of software development.

9. Design that puts feelings first

The design practice underlying Hunicke’s studio Funomena, and the focus of her keynote, is one she calls “feel engineering”. As Hunicke describes it: “Feel engineering is the process by which you create a game backwards from the feeling you want to create in a person forward towards the mechanics and the dynamics of the game itself.” She notes that while feel engineering isn’t easy, due to its time commitment, high cost, and level of emotional investment asked from development teams, it’s worth it. Hunicke speaks to the positive studio culture of feeling-focused engineering, and its contrast to the toxicity of crunch is evident. “The process of making it is so delightful,” she adds. “It’s so much better than anything I’ve ever done.”

We’ve already seen aspects of feel engineering in the mobile market, with games looking to reverse-engineer social situations people already find fun. Haslam outlines how the design of “co-operative shouting game” Spaceteam was inspired by the social experience of playing a board game with friends, an experience its lead designer Henry Smith already enjoyed.

10. Trying – and failing …

11. Feeling twitchy about YouTube and Twitch"
games  gaming  videogames  future  2016  vr  virtualreality  ar  augmentedreality  youtube  twitch  funomena  kickstarter  crowdfunding  indiegames  design  gamedesign  spaceteam  social  collaboration  braid  worldofgoo  steam  mobile  phones  smartphones  pokemongo  keitatakahashi  robinhunicke  thatgamecompany  ghislaineboddington  body>data>space  bodies  play  physical  oculusrift  ramiismail  jordanericaebber  katbrewster  pokémongo  body 
july 2016 by robertogreco
An Asshole Theory of Technology - The Awl
"This reminded me of something I came across a few years ago. It’s an account of Sony Chairman Akio Morita testing out the first Walkman:

[image: "I rushed home with the first Walkman and was trying it out with different music when I noticed that my experiment was annoying my wife, who felt shut out. All right, I decided, we need to make provision for two sets of headphones. The next week the production staff had produced another model with two headphone jacks."]

And an accompanying note, written a decade later in 1989, from writer Rebecca Lind (both collected from this book):

[image: "... the potential interaction of personal stereo use and interpersonal communication was considered from the very beginning of Walkman product development. Further, the potential impact was deemed to be something which should be remedied, hence, the addition of extra jacks and the "hot line" feature [which reduces playback volume and allows sharing listeners to converse without removing their headphones]. Because these attempts were made to neutralize this situation, we may assume that the personal stereo was at first considered to have a potentially negative influence on interpersonal communication."]

There seems to be something similar going on with the Apple Watch: an assumption not just that watches don’t do enough, or that other smartwatches are bad, or that an Apple Watch might allow people to do new things, but that the Apple Watch can, and must, fix the way people behave. It is, in this view, a tool for correcting problems created by the device to which it must be paired to operate. The Apple Watch is supposed to be a filter between you and your attention-suck hellworld smartphone; we will give it permission to intervene because it is slightly easier to look at while reducing our what’s-going-on-over-there-by-which-I-mean-in-my-pocket—by-which-I-mean-everywhere-else anxiety just enough to keep us sane. It provides a slight buzz, hopefully just enough, at a lower social cost. So it’s a little like… methadone?

Sony was worried that its portable stereo would be alienating. This turned out to be true. But the impulse to correct it was wrong: the thing that made it alienating was precisely the thing that made it good. The more compelling a gadget is, the more you use it, the more the people around you resent you for using it, the more they are pressured to use it themselves. (The fact that these devices are now all connected to each other only accelerates the effect.)

This is the closest thing we have to a law of portable gadgetry: the more annoying it is to the people around you, the “better” the concept. The more that using it makes you seem like an asshole to people who aren’t using it, the brighter its commercial prospects.

Consider an extreme example: Skip ahead past whatever replaces Google Glass** and the Oculus Rift to, say, mostly invisible lenses that take over for most of what we use phones for now (and, presumably, quite a bit more). It will certainly be tempting to suggest that the lens is less “distracting” then a phone or a tablet or a watch or a headset that blocks your view. And it will certainly help remedy the specific behaviors associated by previous devices. But just imagine how much of an asshole you’ll seem like to people in your physical vicinity for whom lensworld is inaccessible. You will be less present to non-participants than ever, even if your outward appearance and behavior lacks previously known asshole qualities. You will be two feet away and living on a different planet. (Though by then, maybe phone-level distraction will be normalized. Why prioritize people talking to you from two feet away over people talking to you from 100 miles? What the hell is your problem you stupid bad idiot? I’m talking to someone here, way over there.)

This is not to say that the Apple Watch won’t be successful, or that it will. But if it is, it probably won’t be for the reasons reviewers think, or even necessarily for the reason Apple thinks (it was designed by a self-described “group of people who love our watches,” which, what? Who??). It won’t be because it’s a better watch (boring, weird, WRONG) or because it makes non-Apple-watch users less irritable (anti-marketing). It will succeed if it can create new rude exclusionary worlds for its wearers (this is why I wouldn’t underrate the weird “Taptic” communications stuff).

It will succeed, in other words, to whatever extent it allows people to be assholes."
apple  culture  rebeccalind  akiomorita  communication  attention  isolation  applewatch  sony  walkman  googleglass  johnherrman  distraction  oculusrift  mobile  phones  smartphones  2015 
april 2015 by robertogreco
Surrounded by sound: how 3D audio hacks your brain | The Verge
[video on YouTube: ]

[Bonus video: ]

"The technique at the heart of binaural audio can be traced back to Clement Ader, a 19th-century French engineer. In 1881, Ader devised the Theatrophone, a telephonic system of transmission to broadcast a Paris Opera show. Pairs of microphones were systematically spaced in front of the stage, covering the breadth from left to right. Signals from the show were then transmitted via telephone receivers to listeners on the other end. With a pair of receivers, one mounted on each ear, listeners could hear the show from their designated suites at the gallery of Palais de l’Industrie.

In 1933, AT&T Bell Laboratories brought binaural audio to the Chicago World’s Fair. The acoustics research department of the company created a mechanical dummy, which it named Oscar, with microphones placed on its cheeks in front its ears. Oscar sat in a glass room capturing sounds while visitors gathered outside used headphones to hear exactly what the dummy heard. The technique revised the experience introduced by Ader, but both inventions offered poor sound quality.

Through World War II and the decades that followed, progress in binaural faced significant obstacles: primitive techniques failed to achieve accurate, high-fidelity recordings. But in 1973, Neumann, a renowned German microphone company, introduced the breakthrough KU-80, a prototype binaural recording device. Neumann’s iteration consisted of a detached dummy head with microphones placed in the eardrums – the position captured cues with more precision than any of its predecessors. Three generations of dummy heads later, the KU-100, introduced in 1992, featured omnidirectional microphones, expertly preserving the spatial cues and the overall quality of sound. It continues to be the go-to dummy head for binaural recordings.

Now, almost a century after the demise of the Theatrophones, investors are starting to revisit 3D audio technology: the prototype of Sony’s VR headset Project Morpheus includes a custom 3D audio binaural solution in its development kit. "3D audio adds to the feeling of presence that we strive so hard to achieve with the visuals in VR," says Richard Marks, senior director of research and development at Sony Computer Entertainment America. "When sound is perceived to come from the same direction as a visual stimulus, the credibility of the virtual experience is greatly increased. While purely visual VR experiences can be made, adding 3D audio greatly magnifies the impact and depth of a VR experience."

3D audio offers a more expansive experience than its visual counterpart. "Unlike with the visuals, 3D audio is not limited to the field of view of the display and can be rendered to give a 'complete 360-degree' experience," says Marks. "One of the biggest challenges for VR design is that the user can look in any direction, and may not even be looking when something momentous occurs. But using a 3D audio cue, it is possible to steer the user’s attention to look in the direction of the sound, similar to techniques that are used in live theater.""

"Back in Manhattan, Choueiri is considering another problem: since the inception of the technology, binaural audio has been reserved for headphone listening. But Choueiri wants to make the technology accessible over external speaker systems for a wider audience. The challenge is that with speakers, a right ear not only hears its respective cues, but also picks up information meant for the left ear. "It messes up the cues, so instead of hearing 3D sound, the brain just locates the speakers," Choueiri said. "It’s like watching 3D movies without the glasses on."

For decades, this confusing crosstalk between speakers has perplexed the audio community. But Choueiri’s BACCH SP, a filter that enables a pair of speakers to retain the aural cues, creates the illusion of 3D audio for the listeners. Jawbone has employed Princeton University’s algorithm over the last two years to create the LiveAudio filter for its wireless bluetooth speaker, Jambox. Loading the mini-speaker with the digital filter optimizes audio to create a three-dimensional experience. While effective, the experience is limited to a sweet spot — the device needs to be centered in relation to the listener. The illusion instantly collapses when the listener moves from the spot. Choueiri says a version of that software, the BACCH-dSP app, coupled with a head-tracking feature, can sustain the illusion irrespective of the listener’s head movements. That app is scheduled to show up in the store for Mac OS soon, bringing 3D audio experiences to laptops.

Slowly but surely, binaural is becoming a linchpin in virtual reality development. Oculus’ most recent prototype, Crescent Bay, unveiled at CES last month, integrates binaural technology with Rift’s head tracking for complete audio-visual immersion. And while Sony’s Project Morpheus hasn’t announced final specifications of the product yet, their emphasis on 3D audio is evident. As Adam Somers of Jaunt put it, "Binaural audio is critical to an immersive experience within the context of VR. We consider audio to be 50 percent of the immersive experience.""

[via: ]
ryanmanning  binaural  audio  2015  history  clementader  soundscapes  sound  virtualreality  oculusrift  edg  srg  glvo  video  pointofview  beck  radiohead  binauralrecording  monalalwani  vr 
february 2015 by robertogreco
Architects I work for just gave the best reactions I've ever seen in person. : oculus
"I work as an intern at an office for a few architects as a draftsman. I make 2D drawings and 3D visualizations. I came with the idea to make one of their project into a VR experience and they liked the idea. They gave me a project to work with, which was a perfect fit for VR (a brand new college in Amsterdam with beautiful inside and outside spaces).

Getting their huge and complex sketch-up model of the project exported to Unity was quite the chore. After days of remodeling and cleaning I finally got the model exported in different parts into Unity. After that I had to adjust some textures tweak a bit with the scale and baked the lightmaps (which gave a beautiful result) and the first test build was done. I called over the architect whom was the main designer of this project to come and take a look.

Some people had already seen me working with the rift and didn't think much of it. got some weird looks and people were just like "just let him play with his glasses". The main architect already postponed to see me 2 times due to not having enough time and finally came with an attitude of "okay just let me see your toy".

I was really wondering what kind of reaction he would give, as people react very different on experiencing it. Some are like "okay cool" or "this is not for me I'm getting dizzy" and of course the people that are blown away and yell how fantastic it is. I of course was hoping on the last reaction, but got something way better.

The architect sat down, I explained the 360 controls and what the camera did. After he put it over his head he tried to look up using the controller, and asked me if that was possible. I told him to just look up with his head, after that it was silent for a good 2 minutes. He carefully walked around, completely silent. Normally this man would talk a lot, constantly and really hard. My colleagues looked up with a weird expression, "I've never seen him quiet".

Then a soft "unbelievable" came out of his mouth. "I didn't expect this", "not at all". in the period of 15 minutes he occasionally broke the silence with;

"How is this already possible", "I get it now, I'm so happy I didn't put more bridges in the main hall", "I can now finally see how important it is that this wall is yellow", "I got to change that, amazing that I can finally see it", "this opens so much to me". And some more reactions like that.

He finally put the Rift off his head, his eyes were in a total state of blown away. He put the Rift away and just sat there, saying nothing. Some colleagues were giggling and I asked how he liked it. It looked like my question was just some noise to him, and he replied, "sorry, it's just so much information that I have to process" after 5 minutes of staring he shook his head and stood up. "I would never expect this", "the building isn't finished, and I've already been there" "as an architect, this is cheating, my god".

After that my colleagues naturally wanted to try it out too, they reacted like most people do their first time. During lunch people talked with each other like normal, the architect who normally was leading the conversation just sat there staring in infinity. The conversation was long on a different subject and he would just blurt out things he could do with the Rift. At the end of the lunch he asked me, "I didn't look at a certain part, can I see it again" and again he was lost in another world for like 10 minutes.

During the rest of the day he would run around the office telling people to come see me, which they all did, and all with amazing and entertaining reactions.

I know this was a long read, and I thank you if you put trough it. I just wanted to share the most interesting reaction I ever got."
technology  oculusrift  2015  architecture  vr  virtualreality 
february 2015 by robertogreco
Oculus Rift’s $2 Billion Purchase - TIME
"Palmer Luckey—the name suits him—grew up in Long Beach, Calif., the son of a housewife and a car salesman. He was a natural-born tinkerer. “Self-taught!” is how he describes himself. “Explore the world around you, take things apart, put ’em back together. You can learn a lot if you do nothing but spend your entire life in your garage working on projects or in your room reading on the Internet.” As a teenager one of Luckey’s hobbies was taking apart old video-game consoles and reassembling them inside portable cases. Another one was virtual reality.

It was an odd hobby for a person Luckey’s age because the received wisdom at the time was that VR was a failed technology. Everybody has an idea of what VR is, or what it’s supposed to be: a simulated, three-dimensional, interactive world that surrounds you completely. It’s been a staple of science-fiction classics—-Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Tron, Star Trek, The Matrix—and a core component of our collective pop-cultural vision of the future for decades.

But apart from niche applications like designing cars and surveying oil fields, VR never made it to market. As Luckey puts it, “the idea existed, the will existed, the people existed, the demand existed—and the technology did not.” It baffled engineers, frustrated consumers and ate up billions of dollars of R&D money. Like flying cars and robot butlers, VR is one of those revolutions that went from wow to lame without ever actually materializing in between. Nintendo tried its hand at it in 1995 with the Virtual Boy game console and lost millions. The list of virtual-reality products that launched and then died of neglect is long."
oculusrift  facebook  2014  palmerluckey  autodidacts  unschooling  learning  tinkering  lcproject  openstudioproject  johncarmack  gaming  videogames  vr  virtualreality 
march 2014 by robertogreco
Final Boss Form: Movies of the Future
"What Spielberg and Lucas are really saying is, “Nobody wants our movies anymore.” They’re being credited with foresight for simply noticing that they’re no longer wanted.

The focus on technology as the answer is misguided and embarassing. I’ve fiddled around with Oculus Rift. It’s neat, but it’s not a solution to a problem any more than 3D is. Or surround sound. Or IMAX. Or videos that pause when you look away.  It’s a baby step at best. New features are rarely game changers.

Sleep No More is a solution to the problem. I’ve logged 12 hours in that world. It’s good art. It’s challenging and visceral and human and immersive in a way Oculus Rift will never be. It’s entertainment for grownups. It charges what it’s worth and it’s wildly popular.

Sopranos was a solution to the problem. Louie is a solution to the problem. The Paul F. Tompkast is a solution to the problem. Radiolab is a solution to the problem. The best video games, and not just the ones on your TV screen, are solutions to the problem.

Spielberg and Lucas are predicting the future when it’s already here.  It’s not bold to predict that the megabudget movie industry will die.  The interesting part is that, just as is the case with Spielberg and Lucas projects right now, nobody will care or really even notice when it happens. Our attention will be elsewhere. It already is."
stevenspielberg  georgelucas  2013  future  sleepnomore  oculusrift  imax  3d  film  featurecreep  paultompkast  radiolab  art  glvo  johnny-come-lately  gaming  videogames  attention  movieindustry  movies 
june 2013 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:

to read