Our reading group hasn’t read any books for several weeks now. Apart from the pause, for the past two weeks it has turned into a gaming activity; if this goes on any longer, the reading group is going to become a gaming group……
Last week I finally got the VR set up. Only three little friends came to the reading group, so it just happened to turn into a VR experience session.
Of course, when we play games it is not only for amusement and pastime, but also a necessary practice for the history of science and philosophy of technology; this is by no means perfunctory or a joke. I have justified my application to use my research funds for the history of science to purchase VR equipment, and I will certainly produce relevant research texts. As for the meaning of games, I’m preparing to write a series of articles to discuss it. As for the importance of VR, let me first write an article marked “(1)” about it. (By the way, how many “(1)”s have I already started? I’ve dug so many holes that I don’t even want to fill them in at all……)
“Mobility” and “Immobility”
Today’s VR equipment mainly comes in two categories: one is the head-mounted display that has to be used with a computer host or a dedicated game console such as the PS4; the other is the portable VR headset or all-in-one device that relies on a smartphone or can be used independently. In fact, the system inside an all-in-one device is also a mobile system similar to the Android system in smartphones. The former has powerful performance, but it is expensive: a headset alone costs 5,000 or 10,000 yuan, and a desktop computer capable of running VR also starts at 5,000 yuan, with no upper limit (a single top-end graphics card alone costs more than 30,000 yuan). By contrast, setting up a mobile VR system, including the phone, costs 5,000 yuan and still leaves you with plenty of room to spare.
At present, games and applications on the mobile side are probably the hottest market. If it hadn’t been for cryptocurrency mining propping things up over the past couple of years, the graphics card business would probably have already gone bad. Intel has also been squeezing toothpaste for several years on the CPU front, and computer products represented by Apple have all been moving in the direction of lightness and convenience. It was only when the game PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds exploded in popularity that high-end computer manufacturers and internet café operators saw a glimmer of hope. When buying all kinds of computer hosts or computer components online, as long as they are high-end, they will directly use “playing PUBG” as their calling card. But this wave of momentum seems hard to sustain; as the craze for PUBG gradually fades, and as mobile versions of PUBG-like games appear one after another, it seems that smartphones replacing computers remains the general trend.
But what I bought was still the most money-burning kind of VR headset, powered by a newly purchased 16,000-yuan high-end computer. First of all, of course, this was because my finances allowed it; second, it was also based on my judgment: on the one hand, if we are trying out something new and experiencing it, naturally we should look to the most cutting-edge technology for examination; on the other hand, I believe VR technology is an opportunity for desktop computers to revive. If VR technology matures, it should be able to bring a second spring to the home desktop computer market.
My reasoning is actually very simple, because VR’s application scenarios are completely different from those of the mobile internet. The reason mobile games became so popular is that they tapped into people’s need for entertainment in fragmented time: during class breaks and lunch breaks, on the way to work or school, when lying in bed and refusing to get up, after flopping down…… In the gaps of busyness or in moments of distraction at any time, mobile apps and mobile games fill up our lives.
However, the typical application scenario for VR is precisely “immobility.” Even if you buy a lightweight all-in-one device, you won’t carry it around on the bus or use it casually in front of your desk at any time, and it is even less possible to put it on for a quick look while waiting for the traffic light to turn green (AR is another matter, so let’s leave it aside for now). The most typical application scenario is one’s own home, or a dedicated venue, including commercial VR experience halls or VR classrooms in schools—similar to today’s internet cafés and school computer rooms—in other words, the usage scenarios for VR basically overlap with those of the old desktop computer host, and are quite different from the scenarios of smartphones.
Since VR devices do not require “mobility,” equipping oneself with a high-performance host will not become a burden in terms of user experience; the only thing that needs to be considered is price.
At present, a high-end computer plus VR headset is ten times more expensive than a VR all-in-one device, but that is not a big problem. When home computers first became popular, they were also very expensive. But as long as the technology enters a virtuous cycle and keeps upgrading, a price ladder will naturally take shape. For example, HTC’s second-generation full set now costs 12,000 yuan, while the first-generation full set has dropped below 5,000. When the third generation comes out, the price of the first generation will probably be close to commonplace.
The difference in price can be ignored, but the difference in performance cannot be bridged. Although today’s smartphone chips are already very powerful and can run many games with flashy special effects—and I have also tried mobile VR, whose effect is indeed passable—it still cannot be compared with a hardcore computer host. This has to do with the design orientation of the chips: mobile chips emphasize energy saving, while desktop machines prioritize performance, and can also be equipped with powerful cooling systems. Do not underestimate the cooling problem: according to the laws of thermodynamics, no matter how advanced science and technology become, and no matter how advanced the chip becomes, it cannot escape the cooling problem. So if the computing core is too close to a person’s head, its efficiency will always be constrained.
The Confrontation of Different Technological Biases
New media will encroach on the territory that old media occupy in the lifeworld, but they often will not replace them wholesale. Television encroached on reading time, but it did not abolish the meaning of reading. Smartphones have carried forward fragmented entertainment, but immersive entertainment still has a position that is difficult to replace. To put it more optimistically, we can regard VR technology as a kind of “balance” in response to the fragmented age. Many people are already aware of the destructive force smartphones have on the lifeworld: looking at the phone while eating, looking at the phone while chatting, looking at the phone while in class or at work, and also unable to resist taking a look from time to time while half asleep and half awake…… People are finding it increasingly difficult to concentrate on any one thing, and increasingly difficult to find an activity in which they can immerse themselves for a long time, or even temporarily forget their phones.
How should we struggle a little in front of smartphones? Many people pin their hopes on those old activities, such as going out to enjoy spring scenery, such as reading books, or even educating the next generation through traditional rites and classical recitation, or else simply forcing adolescents away from their phones by orders, or even by confiscation. But I hold out no hope for these strategies. Their fundamental weakness lies less in outdated content than in outdated form. It is precisely because new media such as smartphones have comprehensively collapsed traditional ways of life that trying to prop up these overthrown forces is undoubtedly hopeless. It is like after an old dynasty is overthrown: for a time, imperial orphaned descendants may become hot commodities, and warlords from all over may come to support some of these orphans, so that they have a nominal banner under which to rise up. But if you think the restoration of the old dynasty really has a chance, then you are being far too naive.
I previously applied evolutionary theory to the history of science; using it to understand the history of technology works on the same principle. Outdated technologies and their ecologies (lifeworlds) should be preserved in protected zones and allowed to continue, but they are not to be used for head-on confrontation with fashionable technologies.
At the time of dynastic change, and at the time of technological transformation, what truly competes with one another is not new technology versus old technology, but different new technologies—new technologies in their multiple faces competing among themselves. The old dynasty collapses before the new forces like dry weeds before a strong wind, and this situation makes many people feel “pessimistic,” feeling that human power is feeble and cannot turn the tide. But if we turn our gaze toward the future, and do not hope to reverse fate or change one’s destiny against heaven, but instead ask what characteristics this rising new dynasty actually has, then perhaps this is not a matter with no room for maneuver at all.
The new technological age may see several new forces rise simultaneously, and the relations of confrontation and balance among them are not predetermined; there is still considerable room for development.
As for the different biases of technology, Innis and McLuhan proposed several dimensions of measurement, and these theoretical tools can also be used to analyze the technological confrontations of the new age. For example, Innis pointed out that media have two biases, toward “time” and toward “space”: clay tablets are time-biased (lasting preservation), whereas papyrus is space-biased (rapid dissemination). Today, different information technologies also display different biases; for example, blogs lean more toward time, whereas microblogs lean more toward space.
McLuhan proposed several dimensions of distinction, such as the distinction between visual and auditory, and also the distinction between cool media and hot media. By cool media, McLuhan means media that are cool in themselves, so participants need to be more active in entering into them; hot media, by contrast, provide ample information, so participants are often passively imbued with information. For example, McLuhan regarded film as a hot medium and television as a cool medium, because television has lower clarity.
McLuhan explained the difference between cool and hot media in terms of information density or clarity, but in my view this line of thought is highly problematic. For instance, when television’s clarity keeps increasing, does it automatically become a hot medium? Also, using the dimension of cool and hot media to evaluate VR does not seem all that workable. Of course, I am also not optimistic at all about interpreting VR through categories such as “sensory ratio.”
Focus vs. Drift
I try to set aside the distinction between “cool” and “hot” and instead directly discuss the distinction between “focus” and “drift.” No matter what the clarity of the medium is, the modes of participation required by different media do indeed have such a scale: some media require one to pay attention with one’s whole being, while others only require one to watch casually.
For example, the difference between film and television lies precisely here: film is a medium of focused involvement, whereas television in more situations is casual. Their difference is not determined entirely by the so-called “clarity,” but depends on different application scenarios. In a movie theater, the space is silent and the lights are off; first, all other information is excluded for you, so that you can focus on the one direction of the film. Television, by contrast, is often placed in the family living room or bedroom, where the surrounding environment is always open, so watching television does not forbid conversation; on the contrary, people will talk about it at any time or simply get distracted and do other things. In many cases, the television at home even becomes a kind of background sound; people simply leave it on while doing other things and do not pay attention to any particular program at all.
Books, especially printed books, are also media that require focus. Their characteristic is that when you read, you need a quiet environment that excludes interference from other information besides the book. Oral communication is usually drifting; even if you are chatting with someone you care especially about, it often still requires an open environment—such as eating together, taking a walk together, looking at the moon and counting the stars together, and so on. Even in face-to-face focused conversations such as meetings, people never focus only on speech itself; instead, various “small movements” are added in at any time, bringing vision and bodily movement into the mix. If one tries to exclude all external disturbances as much as possible—for example, by locking people in a dark room and tying their hands so that they can only converse orally—it becomes extremely oppressive.
These different biases are related to the physical characteristics of the media technology itself, but what directly plays the decisive role is still their application scenarios. For example, books and newspapers are both products of printing, and film and television can also use similar imaging technologies (the distinction McLuhan emphasized—whether the light is refracted or reflected—seems to me completely meaningless), but because their application scenarios differ, they produce different biases. Another judgment by McLuhan that I also agree with is that the biases required by these technologies are not confined to the scenarios in which those technologies are used, but also affect other aspects of our lives. For example, printing promoted the development of private space and the rise of visual centrism.
McLuhan believed that because television has low clarity, it cultivates a more focused and involved attitude, whereas Postman held the opposite view. On this point I incline toward the latter. As Postman argued in *Amusing Ourselves to Death*, television strongly cultivates the ability to “switch emotions rapidly”: one second you are feeling sad for the suffering of a group of African refugees, the next second you immediately burst out laughing at some American celebrity’s embarrassing mishap, and the next second you start worrying anxiously about next week’s weather…… This is the everyday state of watching TV news: we are no longer able to calm down and focus on one issue in order to dig deeper and think it through, but are instead tugged along at any time by fragmented emotions.
Smartphones seem to have intensified this state of “absent-mindedness,” with the switching of attention “foci” becoming ever faster, to the point that it is difficult to concentrate. In activities that require focus, such as reading and attending class, the new generation is increasingly losing the ability to “concentrate fully.” This is also precisely why so many people regard smartphones as a scourge.
The Counterattack of the Otaku
But unfortunately, those who regard smartphones as a scourge often simultaneously harbor the same hostility toward all emerging electronic media. As a result, they go astray in the direction of resistance, futilely throwing themselves into the movement for the restoration of the old dynasty.
Because opponents of video games often oppose all video games, or even all games, they fail to see the multiple possibilities contained in new technologies. In fact, video games are not a monolithic category; indeed, perhaps the different types contained within video games already outnumber all the types of traditional games. Of course, different types of games may contain the same bias, but what exactly that is still requires serious game scholars to investigate in depth.
I also admit that a series of electronic media represented by smartphones are indeed very “dangerous,” but the way out is not resistance and rejection, but balance and complementarity; not a retreat to tradition, but support for new balancing forces. Then VR is a major force confronting smartphones; it pushes to the extreme the “immersive” side of electronic media.
VR technology is a blessing for otaku. When we experienced VR, one homebody friend exclaimed that in the future there would be less and less need to go outside. Indeed, the “otaku” are a key force: it is precisely the immobile, homebound crowd that will serve as the balancer of the mobile internet.
Many people misunderstand otaku culture, either thinking that otaku is equivalent to “waste-otaku,” merely some socially useless people; or thinking that otaku is the general condition or ultimate trend of the millennial generation. In my view, that is not the case. In fact, “otaku” actually represents the pole in electronic media that leans most toward “focus.” For example, in some specific usages, “tech otaku” and “military otaku” indicate a life state in which one is especially proficient in a certain field, immersing oneself in research and taking delight in it to the point of obsession. Tech otaku is similar to a geek; military otaku, anime otaku, game otaku, and so on—these concepts of “otaku” can also be replaced by “fan” or “-maniac.” Roughly speaking, anime otaku basically means anime fan, and so on. Of course, this is not “loss” as in being lost, but “obsession” as in being immersed.
“Being immersed” is not itself a bad thing; only many people recognize immersion only in beneficial things, as when parents always hope that their children will become obsessed with studying and unable to extricate themselves, but do not hope that their children will become obsessed with television or obsessed with games. But because of a prior prejudice against “unbeneficial” things, because of an across-the-board resistance to electronic media, people overlook the deeper commonalities and differences in “immersion.” Being immersed in reading is certainly different from being immersed in online games, but being immersed in television is also different from being immersed in games, and even being immersed in different games has different effects; these differences are often unnoticed. On the other hand, whether one is immersed in reading, in programming, in anime, or in games, there is also a formal commonality among these forms of immersion, and this is often ignored as well.
“Otakus” and “fans” both contain a tendency toward “focus.” Whether science, technology, or games, the reason a certain field can make people obsessed with it is that within that field there has formed a self-sufficient world of meaning—the movement of planets is interesting in itself, not because this research can enrich tonight’s dinner; understanding the experiences and endings of a novel’s protagonist is interesting in itself, not because such understanding helps tomorrow’s date; controlling the protagonist in a game to defeat monsters is interesting in itself, not because those experience points can improve my exam scores.
The richer the structure of meaning contained within a certain sphere of activity, the more it can make a person unable to extricate themselves once they go deep into it. In this respect, games are the same as any so-called meaningful activity; or rather, such activities in essence are themselves a kind of “game.”
But being obsessed with a phone or obsessed with television is different; perhaps it is closer to the sense of being “lost.” The gap between being obsessed with television and being obsessed with playing PUBG may be greater than the gap between being obsessed with playing PUBG and being obsessed with astronomy. Because television or smartphones, rather than enticing people to immerse themselves more deeply, lure people into “not immersing themselves,” leading them to pass over and leave behind one meaning structure after another, encouraging superficial improvisation rather than wholehearted investment in a relatively stable sphere of meaning. The tendency toward fragmentation runs counter to the otaku spirit.
Of course, VR technology, like smartphones and television, is not monolithic; comparing them as wholes is rather rough. But at least in broad tendency, “immersion” is unquestionably the keyword of VR. Yet unlike books, films, or even traditional immersive fields such as astronomy and physics, VR’s mode of immersion is not to exclude other senses and enthrone vision alone, but rather to try to draw all of a person’s senses into a self-sufficient world of meaning. The distinctive significance of this medium still awaits our observation and revelation.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply