Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Enthusiast Opts For $2200 Laser Eye Surgery To Enhance Oculus Rift Experience

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the funny-I-might-want-it-for-regular-goggles dept.

Input Devices 109

An anonymous reader writes After 30 years of wearing glasses, one man says that the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset has prompted him to get laser eye surgery. With farsightedness and astigmatism, he says, "Never thought much about the laser surgery until the Rift, that's for sure." He has an appointment to get the $2200 surgery on the 13th of this month. "For me it is clear, my eyeglasses are like an obstacle for optimal VR experience," he said. He hopes the surgery will remove his need for glasses, which can be uncomfortable inside of the Rift, if they fit at all, and cause several issues such as scratched lenses and lower field of view. Oculus plans to make the consumer version of the Oculus Rift (aka CV1) more friendly to glasses wearers, "...we have a lot of great ideas for supporting glasses in the consumer version [of the Rift] (especially since a huge portion of the Oculus team wears glasses everyday!)" they noted in their Kickstarter.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reality not sufficient, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639087)

so... dude has lived his life with the inconvenience of glasses, and incomplete vision
for a great amount of time. thought about the cost of surgery and said meh....

then one day, not the forests, or the mountains... not the clouds in the sky.
not beautiful women at the beach and not the smile of a newborn....

but virtual reality.

better fix my eyes to get the most out of vr.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47639747)

Parent AC really doesn't belong at -1, I was thinking the same thing. I need to wear glasses or hard contacts and LASIK is out of the question, there's a ton of reasons I'd like to get rid of my glasses like to avoid them fogging up, going swimming, having them edge forward as I carry something and can't push them back, leaning over edges and so on. And hard contacts, well trust me nobody who doesn't have to wear them does for good reason. But virtual reality? That's the "killer feature" that tipped him over the edge? To me that's a bit of a WTF, really...

Re: Reality not sufficient, (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639799)

Yes it does. The guy can see with glasses. He can see all those things you mentioned. What he can't do is properly experience VR without this surgery so why not go for it? He really had no reason to do so before.

Barring an unfortunate mistake this will improve his quality of life all around and if it allows him to get more enjoyment out of his gaming experience who are we to question his motives.

I'm quite sure every person alive has done something in their lives with motives others would call silly or pointless

Re: Reality not sufficient, (1)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about 3 months ago | (#47639949)

MIT recently announced screen technology that corrects for bad eyesight. I can't imagine it would be too long before Oculus included this rather than accommodate glasses wearing. I'm lucky that I'm short sighted and have had no problems seeing content on the VR glasses that I've tried so far without my glasses in the way.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Smauler (915644) | about 3 months ago | (#47639981)

If laser eye surgery is out of the question for you, despite having a ton of reasons why glasses and contacts are bad, I'd have to ask why? It's not _that_ expensive.

Off topic : Bad eyesight seems to be the only disability that it's ok to make fun [youtube.com] out of. At least they do some good [youtube.com] adverts, though.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640813)

Bad eyesight seems to be the only disability that it's ok to make fun out of.

I disagree, from what I have seen on the internet there are plenty of disabilities that it's ok to make fun of.
Not only does people make fun of midgets, narcoleptics and obese people, it's also acceptable to make fun of people with worse disabilities, for example Jews.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47642429)

Dwarfism is a pretty small disability, all things considered.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

ilizarovs (3780389) | about 3 months ago | (#47640683)

Irony is in the word -- "Virtual + Reality"..

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

niftydude (1745144) | about 3 months ago | (#47640819)

GP AC really did belong at -1. And you shouldn't have been modded up either.

TFS states he has farsightedness, which means that he can already see all those things without glasses. Up until now, he would only have needed glasses to read - which apparently he was OK with, and so didn't think it was worth the surgery.

Now that the oculus rift has come along, wearing glasses in that thing are annoying in that and he's opted for surgery. Makes sense to me.

Your experience as a shortsighted person bears very little relevance to his experience as a farsighted person.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

YoungHack (36385) | about 3 months ago | (#47640893)

This is right. I'm far sighted, and it is completely different than being near sighted. You can see mountains, you can drive. You can see everything not close in crystal clear fidelity.

For close up work, like reading or sewing or electronics you wear glasses. Most of those activities are fairly static, and glasses are generally no problem (though I find my glasses want to fall off while sewing). I don't have much experience with VR, but I suspect the experience could be completely different.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47642061)

Speak for yourself, chief. Far-sightedness is not an immediate "I can see all of the things not directly in front of my face" scenario. For some, sure, all they need is reading glasses. For many? Yeah, you're wearing glasses for life, as even surgery hasn't caught up with it yet (for more than you'd think, sadly) depending on your prescription.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47641057)

Doh just wait for an optically adjustable version of the next gen VR stuff. It's not that difficult the VR stuff already has optics in it.

May make it harder to share your headset with someone else, but buy two then - the shareholders will approve ;).

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

gargleblast (683147) | about 3 months ago | (#47640909)

Parent AC really doesn't belong at -1, I ...

Here is a copy-paste of the GP's score window:

Starting Score: 0 points
Moderation +5
60% Insightful
20% Informative
10% Funny
Extra 'Insightful' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 5

Which is to say, parent AC was never at -1. Which is to say, stop abusing /. moderation to blow your own horn. And (more importantly) stop telling porky pies.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47642019)

VR may not have been the reason, but one of many - and the one that tipped the scales for him.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (2)

xeno (2667) | about 3 months ago | (#47639951)

Mod parent up. Wish I had points.

I had my eyes zapped about 5 years ago, and even with some complications I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Why? I did it beause glasses were making me hesitant to play with my kids.

As they grew older, I was always getting them knocked off in game play or horsing around, and then I found myself declining to play or playing soft or begging off.... Sport lenses were always a half-measure, and contacts are a maintenance timesink vs continual risks of infection. For a while I was interested in intracorneal rings (the only corrective eye surgery that is 99+% reversable) but there wasn't enough data and they were never really popular in the US. I had PRK instead of LASIK because my astigamtism's anomalies were near the surface (the "flap" would contain irregularities). The final thing that swayed me was that laser surgery (in my case) could be performed in about 10-15% of the corneal depth that is safe to treat. This meant plenty of safety margin for the initial treatment, plus I can have it re-corrected to better than 20/20 as necessary over multiple years without hitting safety limits -- basically I'll die many years before hitting any kind of limit on corneal correction. The PRK process is a much slower recovery than LASIK, and I had some complications that added a couple weeks to that, but I remember the first afternoon after getting the "bandage contacts" off and seeing with my fresh new 20/15 eyes... looking across Lake Washington at ripples in the water from canoe oars, and seeing the color and texture of the window trim on the Safeco building well over a mile away from my car on the 520 bridge. The world is absolutely fucking gorgeous again.

But would I have done it specifically for gameplay? What?

Jesus, dude, go outside and look at a tree.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640943)

"and contacts are a maintenance timesink vs continual risks of infection. "

This is not the eighties anymore.

People wear daylies, no timesink nor infection risk.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47643537)

I don't use dailies. Mine are actually weeklies, but I take them out at night and clean them. It takes less time then brushing my teeth. I don't get why xeno thinks contact maintenance is an issue. I think I spend less time on it than I did cleaning my glasses when I wore those all the time.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47642039)

Interesting... I'd like to pick your brain as I have astygmatism myself and am considering asking about laser correction.

Did you ever find the degree of... well, vision inaccuracy to fluctuate day to day? Some days one eye is worse off than another, some days all is better than normal. The glasses still help when it's all wierd, but not as much (which tells me the angle is the same but the degree is worse).

I'm afraid that if I get it corrected, the stable state won't be what is corrected for.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640885)

For me it is clear, technology is like an obstacle for optimal R experience

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#47641271)

Absolutely true. Some people get it so they can play sports like tennis or go scuba diving. Some do it for vanity reasons. Some just for convenience. VR is as good as any other reason.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

hubie (108345) | about 3 months ago | (#47642493)

Which, to me, really makes this whole thing a non-story.

Re:Reality not sufficient, (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47641631)

You clearly don't understand his problem.

All the reasons you listed to 'fix my eyes' by which, you mean surgery, are covered with little to no inconvenience by wearing glasses.

Wearing glasses isn't a big deal to him (or most people) for any of the things you listed.

You can view mountains fine with glasses. You can view forests fine with glasses. You can love your child with glasses with little to no issues.

Try wearing goggles with glasses and you'll understand the difference.

But hey, you should totally assume you understand this guys point of view because its different than yours.

The flying car of the gaming industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47643179)

Both contacts and eye surgery for astigmatism are fairly recent developments, late 90s and early 00s, depending on type and severity. So he was already wearing his glasses 20 years before he even had the option to do without. With correct glasses he could see all those things perfectly well, it wasn't until VR came along that they became an obstacle.

If anything this says more about the state of VR than about this guy's personal budgetary decisions. We were promised these helmets back in the 80s, and by now they still haven't been able to produce one that can even be worn with glasses. It's deplorable. VR headsets are the flying car of the gaming industry.

Seriously? (1, Insightful)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 3 months ago | (#47639093)

Why not contact lenses?

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639121)

Too invasive.
Too much risk of harming the eye.
Better off to go with surgery.

Don't underestimate the lifelong risks of surgery (2)

Nerdorable (2485832) | about 3 months ago | (#47641103)

I have severe myopia, so anything more than a few feet from me is a blur unless I am wearing my glasses or contacts. I'm an avid gamer (Partnered on Twitch.tv) and I used to be an active equestrian. My lifestyle lead many people to recommend LASIK or PRK surgery, but the risks turned me off from both. LASIK creates an eye flap that can be dislocated, torn, etc., which can permanently damage your eye. This flap is not created with PRK, although there are similar risks associated with that surgery. Our eyes have protective layers for a reason and permanently shaving these off with surgery creates a lifelong risk. One of my friends practices jiu jitsu and he's suffered some major injuries while sparring because of LASIK. One girl that I rode with also supposedly had "successful" surgery, but she became extremely sensitive to light and had to wear sunglasses while riding, which defeated the purpose of getting the surgery. She also had trouble seeing at night and would complain about halos or glare with light. Nearly all of the people that I know who have had either surgery have to carry eyedrops. I'd rather put on glasses or put in contacts that deal with any of the risks associated with these surgeries.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639131)

Imagine having to put them on every time you'd like to play?

I cycle a lot and I hate it. I hate it so much I ended up getting a corrective sport glasses.

Re: Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639155)

Contacts can't fix astigmatism

Re: Seriously? (5, Informative)

Mike Jones (3420339) | about 3 months ago | (#47639167)

Yes, they can. I have astigmatisms in both eyes and wear contacts with no problems.

Re: Seriously? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47642051)

Must be nice. I have the same in both eyes, and the lenses would never sit still. Tilt my head for any reason, they would spin to align with gravity, making things worse. If I blinked, they would shift and take a (short, but noticeable) moment to move back. Looking near the extremes of my eyes would shift them (presumably pressure from my eyelids) also making things worse.

Basically they worked great for looking straight ahead with a perfectly level head. Anything else and they would make my vision worse.

Re: Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639173)

Try joining this century. Heck even last century. Contacts for astigmatism exist.

Re: Seriously? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47642057)

... and suck completely. [slashdot.org]

Re: Seriously? (2)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47639191)

This isn't true. Contacts have come a long way, you can even get soft contacts now which will work with an astigmatism. Talk to your optometrist - I used to think that I wouldn't be able to wear contacts without pain, but for me at least that also has changed.

Re: Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639555)

Contacts can also have bad results. Since I've only got astigmatism in one eye, when I tried contacts they made me super dizzy and eventually sick. Had to go back to glasses.

Re: Seriously? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#47639807)

Yes they can

Re: Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640823)

Of course they can. I have astigmatisms. I only wear lenses that correct for it in my left eye since my right eye isn't that bad and they are a bit more expensive.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639187)

That wouldn't get him onto Slashdot on what is apparently the slowest news day in history.

Re:Seriously? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47639249)

Why not contact lenses?

Because the surgery is a better solution. It just takes an hour or so, and then you are done. How many hours over your life do you spend dealing with contacts? I had LASIK 15 years ago. It cost me about $5000 back then, but it was worth every penny.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639285)

Hours spent on contacts? Laughable. I spend more time shitting every day than putting in or taking out my contacts.

Christ dude, don't ever think about how much time you "waste" sleeping. You might go on a coke bender.

Oh and lasik doesn't last forever nor is it risk free:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/basics/risks/prc-20019041

Re:Seriously? (1)

Kuroji (990107) | about 3 months ago | (#47639481)

You want risk free? Lock yourself in a padded room and make sure to eat nothing but what you get through a feeding tube to make sure you don't choke.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#47639815)

Just make sure you wash your hands before putting them in...

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639475)

After the surgery, aren't you supposed to keep your eyes covered for a full 24 hours? I mean, certainly you don't just walk out, hop in the car, and go home, right?

I've considered it, but don't have the money and don't know much about it.

Re:Seriously? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47639579)

After the surgery, aren't you supposed to keep your eyes covered for a full 24 hours? I mean, certainly you don't just walk out, hop in the car, and go home, right?

When I did it, they would not let patients drive themselves home. I had a friend pick me up. After I got home, I took a sleeping pill and snoozed. When I woke up, I uncovered my eyes, and they were fine. I had to wear goggles for a couple days, so I didn't absent mindedly reach up and rub my eyes. But there was no pain, only a tiny bit of itchiness, and I was able to go to work the next day.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47640011)

They typically do one eye at a time, wait for it to fully heal and then do the other. This is specifically so that you have vision from at least one eye at all times, and so that even with worst possible complications, you'll still have one eye worth of vision.

Re:Seriously? (1)

zarthrag (650912) | about 3 months ago | (#47640977)

I keep a few packs of disposable contacts around just for use with the Rift. Lasik is not a (practical/suggested) option for me - though I did get some (more) motivation to get evaluated because of VR.

I'm thinking there will soon be a cottage industry of corrective prescription eye-cups for VR, until you can simply enter your prescription into your avatar details :-D

Re:Seriously? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47641641)

Not all problems can be corrected with contacts. It wasn't until the last 15 years that contacts could correct one of my issues.

Not all people can deal with contacts. It took me a number of YEARS to finally get to the point where I can put my contacts in and remove them at the speed and with the little effort that pretty much everyone else that wears them does.

Like wise, my primary vision issue, non-binocular vision, can not be corrected with surgery, well, not LASIK surgery anyway, but glasses don't fix that particular aspect either.

Am I not getting it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639095)

When you stick a screen right in your face shouldn't your sight be the same with or without glasses?

Re:Am I not getting it? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 3 months ago | (#47639385)

The focal distance of the Rift's lenses are set at infinity. In effect, when you're wearing the rift, the focal target is a great distance away.

Re:Am I not getting it? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 3 months ago | (#47639665)

It has fixed focal length? Did they forget to consult with optics engineers? No one in the design group owns a telescope or a pair of binoculars?

How about contact lenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639097)

Or are they unable to correct astigmatism?

Re:How about contact lenses? (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 3 months ago | (#47639177)

Toric contact lenses fix astigmatism...been around a while: http://www.allaboutvision.com/... [allaboutvision.com]

Stop beating the horse. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639099)

It is dead. Facebook killed it.

Surgery + Dork = Dorkery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639107)

Get some botox too while you're early adopting trendy shit for the wrong reasons.

Processing in the game (2, Interesting)

lorinc (2470890) | about 3 months ago | (#47639127)

Isn't it completly overkill? I mean, the games can adjust their rendering so as to compensate the visual defects of the player. You just enter your needed correction in a parameter box et voilà. Thet clearly doesn't seem overly complicated to do.

Re:Processing in the game (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 3 months ago | (#47639151)

Can they? Let's see an example.

Re:Processing in the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639169)

Sorry, but that is not how optics work.

Re:Processing in the game (3, Informative)

Ingo Ruhnke (3575189) | about 3 months ago | (#47639261)

While there are some fancy light field displays [nvidia.com] that might be able to adjust for vision defects in software, those are still years after. However the Oculus Rift has swappable lenses, so it shouldn't be to hard to design some lenses that correct whatever vision defect you might have. The consumer version will probably have some adjustable optics to correct for vision issues, at least thats how the first wave of consumer VR headsets back in 1995 worked.

Re:Processing in the game (1)

ColaMan (37550) | about 3 months ago | (#47640993)

And binoculars, for that matter.

Re:Processing in the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639351)

No amount of in-game processing will really change that the screen is right in front of your face. If you're far-sighted, the Oculus Rift probably isn't going to be able to adjust for that.

Re:Processing in the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640289)

How, pray tell, would software outputting to a flat LCD screen correct for astigmatism, myopia, or hyperopia?

custom lens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639163)

would it be hard to switch the lens in the rift with custom one that correct eyes problem?

Re:custom lens? (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about 3 months ago | (#47639205)

would it be hard to switch the lens in the rift with custom one that correct eyes problem?

Depends on how they are mounted. Plus I can't imagine it would be cheap. You would need custom lenses cut from scratch that take both the Rx and the normal cut of the stock rift lenses into account as well as possibly adjusting the prescription for the shorter than normal (for regular glasses at least) focal distance.

Now Oculus could possibly build something into the final consumer version that allows for adding an prescription lens to the system, and setup a retail service to make the lenses with proper adjustments for this particular use. Or they could find a away to allow for better fit of the device for people wearing glasses. But until then, I'd say his options are pretty limited.

Re:custom lens? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47640349)

They are inexpensive twist to lock things. Three notches. Friction fit. Not designed for constant replacement. Would likely get sloppy.

Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (1)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 3 months ago | (#47639179)

I underwent LASIK 14 years ago and I recommend it to everyone. If the OC is what convinced him to do it, great. He should have done it years ago.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (4, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#47639275)

It's only a good idea for the under 30 crowd and the farsighted. Otherwise you don't get much bang for the buck once presbyopia sets in down the line (which it will).

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 3 months ago | (#47639557)

Except in my case there wasn't room for the lens (which I would need) so it's more the situation that it wasn't considered now but could be once my natural lens is worse than the manufactured one would be.

Then again maybe it's not LASIK at all any longer then.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (1)

xeno (2667) | about 3 months ago | (#47640039)

Mmmmm.... No. Bzzzzt.

Presbyopia eventually affects virtually everyone by age 40-50, but that just means that you become slightly more farsighted as the natural lens becomes less flexible. Corrective surgery still removes all astigmatic defects, corrects the focal distance to a normal range, reduces eyestrain by normalizing the two eyes, along with other minor benefits. Old people getting laser correction just means "only" having perfect vision past 0.5-1 meter or so.

Now that I'm old (near death by hipster standards, or so I'm told) and need reading glasses for close work, do I regret getting laser correction? Am I not getting "bang for the buck" as I read highway signs a quarter mile ahead? Do I feel sad as I look at the moon and pick out crater edges wiith my naked eyes?

No. Not one single teensy bit. I am happy to age this way; much happier than all other options.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 months ago | (#47640451)

I got lasik and my doctor kept saying, over and over and over again, "you will still need reading glasses eventually, just like anybody else!" I guess he was worried I'd come after him or something.

But for running and skiing, and especially for motorcycle riding (wind, dust and grit) it is SO much better than glasses or contacts (which I never could really get comfortable with). And I can use $10 Walmart sunglasses again.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640815)

I had a nearsighted rating of -10.75 and -10.50. This meant I could not read a 20 point font at more than 3 inches away from my face without glasses.

I spent 6500 USD (41000 NOK, Norway is expensive :p) getting my eyes fixed (intra-occular lens in front of the natural lens) and it was well worth it.
No having to stress about the hugely expensive and fragile glasses all the time is awesome.

I would not want to do offshore helicopter-crash training with glasses...... (http://omglolbah.net/ksh/mobilkamera/OffshoreTraining/)

The fact that I will get a slight bit of farsightedness down the line is only relevant if you're correcting very low rate vision issues.

In my case it would be like sticking to a monochrome 10 inch monitor instead of buying a nice 24" inch panel because OLEDs are about to come out anyway.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47641079)

It's not a good idea for the under 30 crowd because often at that age their eyes are still changing and if they get surgery it may well need re-doing a decade later. It's only worth it once your vision has settled down, typically around the mid 30s to mid 40s.

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639445)

This. I spent $4200 on mine and I can see great. Best thing I ever did.

The most important thing: don't cheap out. Find the best doctor in your area and pay what he charges. You only have one set of eyes, treat them well. Good doctors will check for all kinds of different defects and diseases, and will tell you if you can't have lasik because of it, and suggest alternatives.

I had better vision less than 20 minutes after the surgery was done, and it took about a month to fully heal and get 20/20. I drove to work the day after surgery. This from bad astigmatism and +4.80 in one eye, +2.40 in the other.

It's true that I may need glasses or another operation when I'm in my 40s, but who doesn't lose some vision when they get old?

Re:Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640131)

My vision is too good for LASIK. They say there's a fair chance they'd make it worse, and they only "guarantee" making it about as good as I am now. Astigmatism is my more significant problem than the (minor) myopia.

I've avoided contacts so far, but for the Rift I might consider going that route. For every day use my ophthalmologist told me they'd be less sharp than glasses and based on my eye tests, I'm the kind of guy who'd notice and probably not like it. Eh, maybe I should try them anyway.

Re: Best $4400 I've ever spent in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640821)

The US really is very expensive for any medical treatment.

LASIK for looking at something close? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639237)

I had Lasik and happy about it, but how can a nearsightedness operation helps viewing something that's sitting a few inches from one's eyes? It was actually easier for me to look at very close things prior to the surgery, due to the lensing effect of myopia...

Re:LASIK for looking at something close? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#47639265)

Unless the OR is pain waiting to happen for users with ordinary vision I'd imagine that the optics are designed to provide a comfortable apparent distance from the screen for viewers with ordinary eyesight. This would mean that a nearsighted user would still be attempting to focus on something that appears further away than close-in vision is suitable for.

Somebody comfortable at closer distances would likely require slightly less correction from the internal optics, since their comfortable apparent distance is shorter; but if the optics aren't designed that way that doesn't help them very much.

just the old movie BrainStorm (2)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#47639295)

some will sacrifice reality for virtuality.

Re:just the old movie BrainStorm (1)

GrBear (63712) | about 3 months ago | (#47639929)

Reality is overrated.

In related news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639307)

... Twitter motivates users to have their thumbs amputated.

Premature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639529)

Is there a point to reporting this BEFORE having the surgery? You'd think the end result would be more interesting.

Bill Gates still wears glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639533)

That's evidence enough for me. Gates has all the money, contacts, and access in the world, and he uses his vision for many of the same day-to-day things that I do.

Have the helmet do it (1)

John Marter (3227) | about 3 months ago | (#47639711)

Would it be possible to put an eye test into the helmet and have it adjust the optics to give the wearer apparently perfect vision? Or is that just too sci-fi?

Re:Have the helmet do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639851)

No because the optics are just user-replacable lenses. What he probably could have done is got a custom set of lenses made for his prescription.

better subject line for story (1)

LordKronos (470910) | about 3 months ago | (#47639789)

man gets lasik, news at 11

Not good for acute night vision. (1)

SteveAstro (209000) | about 3 months ago | (#47639859)

One of the problems of Lasik is the size of the corrected pupil is often not as large as that of your fully dark adapted pupil, and, as an amateur astronomer, it leaves artefacts in your field of view that are objectionable.

that's (1)

Twelfth Harmonic (3464759) | about 3 months ago | (#47639881)

f*cked up

Reddit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639899)

So now ./ is literally posting what some reddit user posted days ago as news....
[http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2cyud1/laser_eye_surgery_scheduled_for_next_week_because/]

(Let the hissy fit begin because reddit was mentioned on ./)

Why does the connection matter? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 months ago | (#47640053)

Why does the connection matter? I opted for glasses when I found I could no longer hit the side of a barn with a rifle, but that was the trigger event that showed me that my eyesight was crap and not the entire reason to do something about my eyes.
I'm sure it's a similar situation in this case. Someone doing something to push the limits of their vision found that their vision was limited.

Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640083)

I recently had LASIK surgery mainly in preparation for the Google Glass and similar devices. It was easy, painless and quick. I now hopefully have another 20-something years until the old eyeballs start deteriorating...

$2200 is pretty cheap! (1)

matresstester (568333) | about 3 months ago | (#47640231)

It was going for $5000 about ten years ago. I think that he would have been a happier person if he did even at that cost 10 years ago.

News just in, Guy wants 20/20 vision! (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 3 months ago | (#47640331)

- Guy has bad eyesight
- Wants them fixed to standard 20/20, using laser surgery.
This is news?

This story would be more interesting if he corrected his eyes to "short sighted", this would improve the experience. He'd then be able to see alot more detail at close range, using his Oculus rift.

Re:News just in, Guy wants 20/20 vision! (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 3 months ago | (#47641659)

In other news, guy who can afford $350 toy can also afford a medical procedure to enhance every facet of his life.

Carmack wears glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640411)

I'm sure he would be fine without the surgery...

It sounds a little crazy but I get it. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 months ago | (#47640719)

I've always had eyes on the border of needing glasses. I could get by without glasses pretty fine, I just sat half a foot closer to the PC and bought giant monitors / TV's - I could see fairly well, just not perfect.

I picked up a 30" 2560x1600 monitor about 3 years back and I just wasn't able to appreciate it. I could read it but only sitting pretty damn close due to the pixel size. 1920x1200 was fine but, I shouldn't need to do that./
Finally caved in and got some glasses at 34 years old - made a great difference.
(Actually once I saw the difference glasses made, I really wished we all had far far better vision, something like 20/5 would be quite nice)

lasik for everyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640919)

oculus could sell a special edition bundle that includes laser eye surgery

Why not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47640989)

...order a set of special oculus lenses that correct for his eye dificiency?
I hear the lenses are interchangeable and have a couple in your strength shouldn't be such a big problem to produce. Heck it would be a great after market extension for a new company to make.
Kickstarter maybe?

Why not..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47641005)

...adjust the display, the graphics, to according for your prescription???

Stupid title and article. (3, Interesting)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 3 months ago | (#47641647)

It might as well have said "People that can afford rift can also afford laser surgery."

As someone who had a $3000 laser surgery done recently. I suggest everyone that qualifies (not all conditions can be fixed) and can afford it to get it. It really is the best money I have ever spent in my life.

I am an amateur astronomer, so one could say about me: "Man buys $3000 laser surgery to enhance $2000 telescope experience." Am I a dope because I spent more on my eyes than my telescope? I get a hell of a lot more use out of my eyes than the scope. Every waking moment vs. that once a month it is actually clear and dark out.

It also enhances my exercising experience, my playing hockey experience, my driving experience, and my swimming experience. I think it helps me not get headaches when staring at a computer screen for hours at a time at work. (though that last one is highly subjective, the rest are true)

Re:Stupid title and article. (1)

hubie (108345) | about 3 months ago | (#47642507)

However, it would make a good Onion article if the title started out with "Area Man . . . " :)

Why not just wear those night time contacts (1)

ToddInSF (765534) | about 3 months ago | (#47642475)

that change the shape of your eye, that makes way more sense, and is way less risky and expensive...

Don't forget (1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | about 3 months ago | (#47642781)

to get the Zune tattoo while you're at it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?