Whatever Happened to 3D Porn? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

seeric · 12-11-2014, 10:08 AM

Short answer. No one gives a shit.

No one wants to see their porn stars and all their bruises, scabs, and pimples in 4K either.

They're great marketing tag lines, but at the end of the day, no one wants that. It ruins the fantasy.

Online masturbation is at best a 7-10 minute experience in most cases. Too much work to get all this stuff set up. Don't get me wrong, the same weirdos who buy those fake dolls and dress them up in their living rooms will buy the 3D and virtual stuff too, but I don't see it being adopted by critical mass to make the margins work.

2cents.

seeric · 12-11-2014, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

Rift...

It will not take off for porn, not just from the FB acquisition either.

If you guys remember last year there was a company in Irvine, CA developing content using the developer only versions (and pre-release) Rift from Occulus VR.

I was part of that team.

The launch was a viral success...it was picked up by Reddit, major news outlets even Discovery Channel, Fox....gamers went nuts.

California startup creating first generation of "adult entertainment" for Oculus Rift

The concept was solid, we had a few levels done for the Rift (enough for proof of concept) but the reality is there needed to be more. The problem also was ROI and from a business standpoint due to overhead the cost of developing each individual release/project, it was a major issue (in my mind at least). Montenization was always a big concern, since we were potentially first in market there was and is no benchmark.

This was something that could have been great really, especially since there was such a demand for it, but the risk was heavy. We hired and relocated developers and level designers from ID Software and other really top notch companies even.

If you ever have used a Rift it's quite an experience (almost to the point of barfing for some people), executing that with porn is totally different thing. The people we "tested" the unit were underwhelmed and wanted to get off so there was a missing element. One guy said he'd rather jack off and look at a big monitor.

3D porn, VR porn the thing that could make it really big is a physical element (Real Touch/Fleshlight/etc.) which would add costs to an end-user in the end. The tits on the girls were amazing though, especially since they were motion captured for ultimate "breast shaking movements".

Nice work man!

Yah OR really needs to work on that nausea thing. I tried it, and I have a bulletproof stomach and am a pretty wild child extreme sports guy and it made me dizzy and nauseous.

RTP · 12-11-2014, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeric

Nice work man!

Yah OR really needs to work on that nausea thing. I tried it, and I have a bulletproof stomach and am a pretty wild child extreme sports guy and it made me dizzy and nauseous.

Thanks man, we tried - at least we know the demand now and why it's fucked when it comes to $$$

Same here...it was like a FPS on bath salts (not that I admit to trying bath salts)

VRPdommy · 12-11-2014, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

Rift...

It will not take off for porn, not just from the FB acquisition either.

If you guys remember last year there was a company in Irvine, CA developing content using the developer only versions (and pre-release) Rift from Occulus VR.

I was part of that team.

Please don't judge the VR & VR Porn over your failed start-up.
The consumer devices have yet to be delivered (probably in may 2015 for Oculus).
But there is Gear VR from this week till then.
You had no market without devices to view the content.

Google has lost most all of their developers for the project GLASS because they will not put a consumer device in the hands of people. So developers moved to VR Development because it is going to have a market that provides a ROI.

Glass probably has no chance to market till this VR boom gets started or far underway if at all.
Sometimes correct timing is everything.

The simple fact remains (for those of us that have been around long enough to know) that Porn has driven every major display tech we now enjoy. If porn has not been desirable to view on it, it does not take off. They are the early adopters that make it happen.

virtualrealporn dot com (new name) is not having a problem even with dev kit only market.
They continue to churn out content and get better about how they do it.

Because they have the early lead and continue to improve, the market will be belong to them next year when 1M good units or more are in consumer hands. I can see them easily monetizing 50k folks that first year multiple times.

RTP · 12-11-2014, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Please don't judge the VR & VR Porn over your failed start-up.
The consumer devices have yet to be delivered (probably in may 2015 for Oculus).
But there is Gear VR from this week till then.
You had no market without devices to view the content.

Because they have the early lead and continue to improve, the market will be belong to them next year when 1M good units or more are in consumer hands. I can see them easily monetizing 50k folks that first year multiple times.

You are correct we had no market with only dev kits and developers to test with proof of concept (why I mentioned there was no benchmark in my post). No one is judging VR or VR Porn based on one companies experience, but I will tell you know there is a problem in "projected" montenization which was a major bottle neck...

Development overhead vs subscription based/episode based is a big issue. If you are a development company you will know the actual break even in this case is very bad. Again we had no benchmark but it wasn't what killed the company either. These are simply issues that were major obstacles that never were addressed.

RTP · 12-11-2014, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

virtualrealporn dot com (new name) is not having a problem even with dev kit only market.
They continue to churn out content and get better about how they do it.

Why are you speaking in the 3rd person when you are a company rep? Biased opinion? "They" are not having problems with what exactly, when you state there are only dev kits on the market? So you seeing "them" easily montenizing 50k makes no sense. No one should have problems making content that's just basically shot with no actual motion capturing and simply trying to ride the tide bud

VRPdommy · 12-11-2014, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

... but I will tell you know there is a problem in "projected" montenization which was a major bottle neck...

... These are simply issues that were major obstacles that never were addressed.

I understand and agree.
There is a thin line between being early to market and ruling it and being properly monetized to stay on your feet till the market develops. That is why Oculus sold to Facebook. Oculus can now stand on their feet and develop the market and Facebook will be able to be first to market VR Chatrooms and Live Virtual Concerts and Sports that it is well positioned for and apps are being developed for that as we speak.

I would be like many silent folks you never hear about, out there keeping my dev ideas secret till the market is actually there and then go full bore. But by waiting, you may be just the 3-10th guy out the gate and get no attention at all.

All just chances you take. You pay your money and take your choice.

There will be several new VR techs that few gave any thought about spring up when the Rift is in consumer hands.

Many of them will be/are waiting on new haptics for VR to finish DEV.
I think we shall see some answers to that part of the equation at CES 2015.

After the haptics problem is solved (and it may well be solved as I speak of it), this will not stop from exploding to market like no other consumer/business tech before it.

VRPdommy · 12-11-2014, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

Why are you speaking in the 3rd person when you are a company rep? Biased opinion? "They" are not having problems with what exactly, when you state there are only dev kits on the market? So you seeing "them" easily montenizing 50k makes no sense. No one should have problems making content that's just basically shot with no actual motion capturing and simply trying to ride the tide bud

I am no company rep or owner. I have just followed this tech since it's inception probably before you had to wear diapers.

I say only that they are making money despite no real consumer product release.
They are making money on just folks using 1 of 80k dev kits or a few cheap add-ons to a cell phone that do not really give VR proper justice.
I see no others doing what they are doing nor as well as they are doing it.
Sorry my personal future estimate seems to offend you. It's a opinion as stated.

No one should have problems making actual 3D video content that has hemisperical or omnisperical scope for the VR immersion.
But where are they?
RealVirtualPorn is the only site I see. And if you are not viewing it on a intended device, you don't understand what it really is. And when more devices are out there, clearly they will take the lead. not that there will not be others.

But they now have some practice on what works and what does not. They also should have some money to make it better as time goes on. Starting with the camera equipment.

Many are waiting for better and less expensive camera tech more suitable for VR and it is coming.
3D omnispherical cameras are coming to the market as we speak.

I am not sure what you are looking at when
you say
"that's just basically shot with no actual motion capturing"

Perhaps you need to study this a bit more before commenting further.

RTP · 12-11-2014, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

I am no company rep or owner. I have just followed this tech since it's inception probably before you had to wear diapers.

Okay VRP not a company rep? You should have just used a fake nick. Also if you were following it before I had diapers then it would be in the 1970s? Instead of making personal insults stay on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Perhaps you need to study this a bit more before commenting further.

Perhaps I should study it? What do you think I did or are you too ignorant to realize. Maybe you need figure out what VR actually is, if you think it's as your company believes it is which is basically 180 degree capture in panoramic views of high-def porn you are incorrect. If you believe that VRP (not your company but in your nick) that is VR then maybe you need to take a look at the technology you follow.

That is like showing up to a bachelor party with a tranny, it's looks real but isn't the real deal.

True VR (as you should know) and what the Rift is designed for is a fully immersive experience. We are talking level design, VIRTUAL avatars AND motion capturing of avators/modeling...have you ever even been in a Rift?

VRPdommy · 12-11-2014, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

Okay VRP not a company rep? You should have just used a fake nick. Also if you were following it before I had diapers then it would be in the 1970s? Instead of making personal insults stay on topic.

...if you think it's as your company believes it is which is basically 180 degree capture in panoramic views of high-def porn you are incorrect. If you believe that VRP (not your company but in your nick) that is VR then maybe you need to take a look at the technology you follow.

That is like showing up to a bachelor party with a tranny, it's looks real but isn't the real deal.

True VR (as you should know) and what the Rift is designed for is a fully immersive experience. We are talking level design, VIRTUAL avatars AND motion capturing of avators/modeling...have you ever even been in a Rift?

I'm sorry to offend you with the diaper thing. Just a observation from the words you were using. I apologize.

I have no company (i say again) So Please read that again. VRPdommy stands for VR Porn Domainer.

I am a domainer and investor, Venture capitalist and experimenter/midnight engineer. I will make money off of VR, 3D and the media hardware/software used no matter who else makes money on it. It matters not to me. I watch the markets for what is might happen and what is actually happening. Make better judgements from it. It is a daily chore.

Just like Palmer Luckey, I too looked at why VR was not working and tested even the old military stuff that was bulky, heavy, and costly. I was even using the BB when Palmer was experimenting with the cell phone parts on mtbs3d and met up with John Carmac (unknowingly) in those BB posts. I was one of the first in line for a Oculus Kickstarter dev kit. I now own many Dev Kits. I am developing my own apps/toys that may never become a company if I chose not to go forward. I might sell out.

If VR to you is all about avatars, you shall never get a grip on and make money from what is about to be delivered. .. Others will succeed without "avatars". It is only one aspect/vision of it, not the only thing. Immersion is immersion. And VR is about that Imersion.

Sorry, go ahead and take me to the cleaners in rough comments, but this is getting out of hand and I will not reply again so have at it.

Dirty Dane · 12-11-2014, 08:00 PM

Modern screens can convert into 3D on the fly.

RTP · 12-11-2014, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Sorry, go ahead and take me to the cleaners in rough comments, but this is getting out of hand and I will not reply again so have at it.

Come on man..you know that VRP is making money, how 50k is feasible etc. We're not that stupid here in America despite what the news says about us.

We know Palmer personally here in Irvine and it's not all about avatars of course after all we did level design with his help. Trust me I understand your passion and however technical you may be...good. I don't care about latency and any of that, my sole purpose on a project like Sinful Robot is to be the strategist to get it to market. I am responding to this thread not because I am an expert in VR but because I know first hand how ROI is not there for porn and VR. FIRST hand not speculation.

Also I'm not trying to take you to the cleaners I'm actually being very nice.

If I was to take you to the cleaners, I'd say you couldn't montenize a hooker at a porn convention

2MuchMark · 12-11-2014, 10:25 PM

In my opinion, Stereoscopic 3D movies are pointless. They really do not add anything to the experience of any movie, hollywood mainstream, or porn. 3D movies are most fun when things pop-out at the screen. Gay movies in 3D with giant dicks that seem to stick way out of your computer screen might work, but 2 or more people fucking on screen and at the relative same distance from the camera might just as well be in 2D as there is hardly any difference at all.

On the other hand, creating virtual people with 3D Scans and motion capture could be really interesting. Rendered separately and properly into true stereo vision with an Oculus gadget and moving around in 3D space would be pretty interesting, and the technology to do it is improving every day.

VRPdommy · 12-11-2014, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

In my opinion, Stereoscopic 3D movies are pointless. They really do not add anything to the experience of any movie, hollywood mainstream, or porn. 3D movies are most fun when things pop-out at the screen. Gay movies in 3D with giant dicks that seem to stick way out of your computer screen might work, but 2 or more people fucking on screen and at the relative same distance from the camera might just as well be in 2D as there is hardly any difference at all.

On the other hand, creating virtual people with 3D Scans and motion capture could be really interesting. Rendered separately and properly into true stereo vision with an Oculus gadget and moving around in 3D space would be pretty interesting, and the technology to do it is improving every day.

Yes, most of the movies viewed on traditional 3D TV's had a nice effect but not a great one.

I think most of the problems 3D media has faced is that it has been created poorly and delivered poorly. If either side of the equation is poor, it's poor as a whole.

4 years ago, I tried a pair of Vuzix 3D stereoscopic glasses and the effect was much more appealing on media I had previously seen on 3D TV's. But the actual screen size (as viewed) was limited. Even though they used terms like... it's like viewing a 8 ft screen from 30ft (for instance) it was not something you could relate to for actual size before you bought one. If you did not know someone who had one, you could not try before you buy.

But watching the same movies even on the original Oculus DEV KIT (DK1) when the resolution was so poor that it was like looking through a screen door because you could see the spaces between the pixels, the effect was so much better and very much more comfortable.
The DEV Kit-2 eliminated that screen door effect and made the experience more like being in a imax theater. In some ways better.

What really caught my renewed attention for 3D was home movies from the original GoPro Hero with a 3D Kit. It was far more appealing than anything I had ever watched in 3D before on the Vuzix. Now, Watching that same footage was unbeatable on the Oculus DK2.

"Great 3D" can be created on the cheap, just nobody is doing it... yet.
It looks much closer to what you would think it should with the pair of Hero's and 3D kit, but not on a 3D TV.

More choices on the delivery device, who makes the media and the devices they use to make the media are all on the upswing and improving and getting cheaper.

They are already doing 3D scans of actors for CGI so that a stunt double is no longer needed. The Game industry is also on it for sports games in NFL and NBA.
I'm not sure how long that will take for the same 3D scan tech you and I could afford.
Could be interesting !

just a punk · 12-12-2014, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP

This was something that could have been great really, especially since there was such a demand for it, but the risk was heavy. We hired and relocated developers and level designers from ID Software and other really top notch companies even.

This could be a great thing to promote too. Just because it can't be stolen by pirates

petricale · 12-12-2014, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpicyM

No fucking way I would put some glasses on to watch porn.. I hate 3D movies in general and I think I only watched one - in the cinema.

You can say that 2D is more easy to use... but 3D can be the future imo

VRPdommy · 12-12-2014, 09:29 PM

For anyone who was following my comments...
I did miss-speak when mentioning a website incorrectly. Probably as they have just changed their name...

Quote:

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

No one should have problems making actual 3D video content that has hemisperical or omnisperical scope for the VR immersion.
But where are they?
RealVirtualPorn is the only site I see. And if you are not viewing it on a intended device, you don't understand what it really is. And when more devices are out there, clearly they will take the lead. not that there will not be others.

But they now have some practice on what works and what does not. They also should have some money to make it better as time goes on. Starting with the camera equipment.

Many are waiting for better and less expensive camera tech more suitable for VR and it is coming.
3D omnispherical cameras are coming to the market as we speak.

I am not sure what you are looking at when
you say
"that's just basically shot with no actual motion capturing"

The site I was referring to was VirtualRealPorn dot com and was formally known as OculusRealPorn and obviously, there is a trademark violation there so they needed to change their name and the new name has not stuck with me just yet. Hence the error on my part.

ReggieDurango · 12-12-2014, 10:22 PM

Remember in the 70's when there was 3D porn?!?

thecatwrites · 12-12-2014, 10:29 PM

Too horny to fumble around for the 3D glasses.

12-11-2014, 10:25 PM	#63
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,008	In my opinion, Stereoscopic 3D movies are pointless. They really do not add anything to the experience of any movie, hollywood mainstream, or porn. 3D movies are most fun when things pop-out at the screen. Gay movies in 3D with giant dicks that seem to stick way out of your computer screen might work, but 2 or more people fucking on screen and at the relative same distance from the camera might just as well be in 2D as there is hardly any difference at all. On the other hand, creating virtual people with 3D Scans and motion capture could be really interesting. Rendered separately and properly into true stereo vision with an Oculus gadget and moving around in 3D space would be pretty interesting, and the technology to do it is improving every day. __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

12-11-2014, 10:08 AM	#51
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	Short answer. No one gives a shit. No one wants to see their porn stars and all their bruises, scabs, and pimples in 4K either. They're great marketing tag lines, but at the end of the day, no one wants that. It ruins the fantasy. Online masturbation is at best a 7-10 minute experience in most cases. Too much work to get all this stuff set up. Don't get me wrong, the same weirdos who buy those fake dolls and dress them up in their living rooms will buy the 3D and virtual stuff too, but I don't see it being adopted by critical mass to make the margins work. 2cents.

12-11-2014, 08:00 PM	#61
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Modern screens can convert into 3D on the fly.

12-12-2014, 10:22 PM	#68
ReggieDurango Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: California Posts: 4,755	Remember in the 70's when there was 3D porn?!?

12-12-2014, 10:29 PM	#69
thecatwrites Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 418	Too horny to fumble around for the 3D glasses.