I think you’re right, there was a pretty unexpected “long road” ahead to VR actually becoming enjoyable enough for every household, but I’m pretty optimistic we’re making strides to get there. I mean there’s a few companies coming out with their own headsets so that says something!
Oh, Absolutely! It has been growing steadily, I think we all just hoped that it would get huge right away, but I will take slow progress over no progress :)
An interesting idea. I disagree. So-called "spatial comuting" has been around in myriad forms since the early day of the resurgence in the form of streaming from a competent machine. But it has failed to achieve both high retention, and indicate a significant market. Apple's device clearly is a replica of their mobile devices, implying the types of software we see on mobile devices. However, there is one thing in VR that has been highly successful when deployed: hybrid games/software. It has the benefit of lower development cost (dramatically), increasing target audience (including traditional gamers), and making the platform less niche. However, the VR media has been VERY clear that hybrid games are "inferior" and should not be arguing by way of a false dichotomy that VR content should be made "from the ground up". This cultural norm, I believe, has kept the medium from being another type of display, to being a ridiculously niche platform. There's nothing to suggest hybrids would in any way threaten ground-up games, but help them by way of a larger market. And if ground-up games are superior (which they CAN be), they would thrive in such an environment. But adopting a mobile strategy increases forces for short-form content that tends to be heavy on mechanics, but light on story and world building which are common in long-form games. Thankfully Capcom and Sony have shown the merits of hybrid games and their high attach even with non-VR gamers, and Flat2VR is leading the charge in a concerted effort to port games to VR with modding software, and now a studio that facilitates such actions on behalf of willing studios. If there is hope for VR, I believe it is this.
I largely agree with you. The only thing I'd point out about hybrids is that while they're great for VR users, their appeal to the flat audience diminishes dramatically when there's a delay in adding the VR mode. Ideally the VR mode would be present at launch, but the nature of modern game development and standard industry practices make that unlikely. Companies know that most of their sales will be from flat gamers, so if they're struggling to meet their launch date (which almost every game is, as evidenced by egregious launch issues and massive day-one patches), the VR content would be the first thing jettisoned into a future patch. On the other hand, adding VR to a game that's years old can actually be more exciting than a game getting its VR mode within a year of launch. Something like Skyrim VR came along years after the flat version launched, so many people were excited to revisit a fondly remembered classic in a new way. I think some of the hybrid games on PSVR 2 sadly fell into that awkward timeframe where most people had bought and played the flat game when it launched, and it was too soon for them to be interested in playing it again. IMO there would've been way more hype for the Resident Evil hybrid modes if instead of making RE Village a PSVR 2 launch game, Capcom had gotten RE4 Remake's VR mode ready for that game's launch, then did RE Village after.
@@GreyMatterShades I largely agree. I would say that the value of building that demand warrants even later hybrids. When games like Madison VR and RE4 VR and GT7 VR release, they (along with VR) get pulled into the mainstream gaming conversation, despite their late debuts. Optimizing timing aside, I think PSVR2 simply needs far more hybrids. IMO, there should be a few notable hybrids/ports launched every month, rather than a few each year. UEVR studio is, IMO, the most exciting development in VR in 12 years.
I only recently got my first VR Headset the MetaQuest 3. And holy crap, I had no idea we had come this far with VR. I'm disappointed in the adoption rate and VR dedicated titles. But we're definitely going in the right direction. Sounds silly but my hurdle to VR adoption was dealing with cables, and the lighthouses. When I saw the meta quest 3 offered hand & controller tracking without those. I decided to give it a shot. And wow. The controller and hand tracking are both mindblowing. To watch your hands/swords or whatever move 1:1 is very impressive. The resolution and refresh rate are just wow. And I'm really impressed at how good Air Link works. Managed to play a fast pace game like Overload and couldnt' tell that I was connected wireless to my computer while playing with my mouse & keyboard. I think there's probably a lot of people like me that don't realize where the tech is at now.
You’re attachment to the PC is holding you back, just like to many people’s attachment to mobile phone level processing for VR is holding them back. No significant number of people will pay 3,600k for an VR HMD. Beyond that the real sales pitch for Apple Vision is “It will make you more Efficient at Work.” Being more efficient in the grand scheme of things basically means you’re getting more work dumped on you and people will be laid off. Who wants to do that in 2024? The future for the masses is PSVR2-PSVR3 etc. The problem with attempting to use PC as a baseline is that Stereo rendering requires too much processing to be included in a bloated runtime/executable that requires code for every CPU and GPU imaginable. Every computer is made less capable to allow every computer to be compatible. Some people are straight up in denial about this, some people don’t know because they are using prefabbed engines like Unity, Unreal, Godot and they never stopped to think about the overhead for the actual runtime hogging resources. The console exe’s are way smaller, allowing them to run faster, more efficiently and use a fraction of the resources. PlayStation having 1 config. Or 2 with the forthcoming PS5 “Pro” makes life for the exe way easier, thus giving the developer access to more faster in a reliable way. Since Sony is making PSVR2 compatible with PCs more developers will use that as a gateway to get their games on PS5 once they see how big the audience is there that actually buys more games than talk about VR tech. Assassin’s Creed bombed on Quest and the PCVR community that actually buys AAA games is smaller than that. The built-in efficiencies of building for a single hardware configuration and the processing headroom you get back is going to start showing up in larger budgeted PSVR2 games on PlayStation in 2025. (Behemoth seems like one) Once enough devs start pushing that way the engine developers will pivot to more VR efficient builds and make more complex creations accessible to devs.
Look if every other company could produce a $300 dollar head set that has stand alone, without wires they would see the profits they want. Meta is the only one who's target audience was under $30,000 annual income. I hope facebook keeps going because people really do want this technology.
vr really stunted itself during lockdown it had as big surge in popularity but only company that did anything with that popularity was meta but a lot of people avoided meta because the required a Facebook account now its a little different but also popularity has died down. just sad more companies didn't jump at the popularity surge
Come across this video as my first ever VR headset (quest 2) has literally just arrived today. I think with the idea of VR takeoff, it isn't just about the cutting edge high end, but the low end entry point too. For a lot of people (like me) who are sort of maybe interested in VR, we have only just hit the point where the minimum acceptable quality has crossed over with the minimum acceptable price. The quest 2 is currently selling better than the quest 3. I got mine for under £200 and I wouldn't have considered anything higher. I think a lot of this low end buy-in will help drive / fund future innovation just as much as the "apple factor" will with the high end spacial computing.
As someone who has been in it since the beginning, Welcome aboard! We are so excited to have you and hope you love it! Honestly, I love this comment so much because it's a perspective I hadn't thought about, but very happy to hear! I think all it's just going to keep getting better and better.
I basically said the same thing in a much, much longer comment. For most people who have never tried or only dabbled in VR, the content on offer (or at least their perception of it) doesn't justify the price being asked. That's the biggest issue holding VR back. The vast majority of new adoption is going to come from the low-end entry point. Hopefully the industry takes strides toward addressing that issue from both sides. Better content and lower prices. IMO VR games could be better if developers shared/licensed technology more rather than reinventing the wheel every time, and prices could be lowered if companies subsidized their hardware via contracts for monthly-billed services, similar to the cell phone model. Really hope you enjoy your entry into VR. If you're into gaming, I'd recommend the Moss games, Pistol Whip, and the Red Matter series. They're all great games and good for VR newcomers.
One of the major things that keeps me from indulging in the VR space is ad placement in the inability to block the ads. I don't ever have to watch an ad when I watch video content on my computer or cell phone but on these VR proprietary headsets with proprietary software, there won't be any ad blockers in place for streaming services such as UA-cam and Tubi. I do not know if I would be able to install and utilize the brave browser so that I can circumvent ads and if not, that is a complete deal breaker for me. If I am not able to get the content without ads then I don't want it and I don't need it. I understand very well that this is a pay to play system we are in and I guarantee the people that are creating this technology are thinking of multiple different ways in which they can take money out of the consumer's pocket any which way they can deem necessary. I personally live outside of compulsive consumerism and bombardment of ads and commercials. I refuse to allow myself to be commercialized like that and I try my best to get around it whenever possible. I know I have no flawless system but I do my best and what I mainly consume on a TV is video content and entertainment and that is the exact place where a lot of ads and commercialization happen. The VR space as I am aware, would give the marketing industrial complex and avenue to bombard us with overlay pop-ups and suggestions throughout our daily lives and routines.
Interesting, that wasn't something I considered! I should look into what kind of web browsing options currently exsist for VR, if I find anything worth looking into I will let you know!
When you say VR is just a fragile spark that would have died without Meta, I don't agree with that at all. VR is not fragile and can not die. The technologies necessary to build VR exist now. Meta and every other company involved in VR could go out of business tomorrow, and other companies... new companies... would pick up that torch. It can be done, so someone will do it. I would argue that Meta has done more harm to the growth of the VR industry than good. This company fractured the fledgling VR industry into fragments with exclusives before it was ready and immediately turned VR hardware into a race to bottom. This did make VR hardware affordable for more people sooner, but it also made it much more difficult for any company to innovate new and better VR hardware because they couldn't sell anything more expensive than Quest. The Valve Index was generally considered the best consumer VR headset you could buy for 5 years not because it was so great, but because previously rapid VR hardware advancement slowed to a crawl after the release of the Quest 2. If Facebook had never bought Oculus, other companies would have taken up the mantle instead. Other companies _were_ taking up the mantle. And maybe these other companies would have gotten into their own shenanigans which would have slowed industry growth, too. But I think it's a low bar for them to have done better than the mess Facebook/Meta made of things. The best effect that the entrance of Apple is having on the VR industry is causing other companies to abandon following Meta in their race to the bottom and instead turn to innovating again. Make the product desirable first, and then make it cheap. Whereas Meta has done it in the opposite order, and it predictably hasn't worked out very well. Other companies are getting into the mix again, and I'm cautiously hopeful about where that's going to go. I think we're past the original hype now and getting into more real sustained growth.
Oh trust me, I am no fan of Meta, I think you raise many good points, and I'm truly hopeful that you are right about the effect apple will have on other companies entering the market! The future for VR is an exciting one, and I'm happy all of us are on this journey together!
Developers need to embrace more simplistic design versus trying to recreate reality. There's a game for PCVR called compound. Holy crap, it's got Wolfenstein 3D type of graphics for textures. And it just looks awesome and works!
Just found your channel. Hearing your opinion was interesting but I fundamentally disagree with you. AVP and spatial computing are definitely not the solution. The biggest problem with VR is that not enough people will buy a headset because the content on offer (at least how non-users perceive it) isn't compelling enough to justify the price of the hardware. For someone who hasn't tried VR, getting into VR means paying hundreds of dollars to play games which look worse than their PC/console games. The only options to resolve this problem are 1) improve the perceived quality of the content, or 2) reduce the price of the hardware. Ideally the industry would tackle both. On the first point, the perceived quality of content could be improved by either actually improving its quality, or by improving the public's perception of it. Improving the quality of software isn't easy since the current VR userbase isn't big enough to justify the large budgets which high quality content often requires. However I think there's an obvious way for game developers to produce better games without increasing their budget: Find someone who's already made a game with the mechanics you want, and license their code from them. There's far too much reinventing the wheel going on in the VR space; and at the end of a multi-year development cycle, most developers don't wind up moving the industry forward, they just wind up with a shittier wheel. Their time and effort would be much better spent refining/differentiating the solid foundation they've licensed and building compelling content. Mighty Eyes' VRAF framework for Unreal could be a big step in this direction. On the other hand, perception of the quality of content could be improved with better marketing. Unfortunately VR is very difficult to advertise, since the things that make it great can't easily be conveyed via any other medium. It also doesn't help that most VR games don't look particularly good, especially since the market almost entirely shifted to standalone headsets. Still, better marketing campaigns which show off some of the more visually impressive VR games could help in this area. But by far the best marketing strategy for a VR headset is having public demos in places where normal people can give it a try. The pandemic put a damper on such things for years, but now that we've returned to a relative state of normalcy, platform holders should start doing this again. Sony did it extensively with PSVR 1, and I think that's one of the reasons it was the best selling headset until the Quest 2 (the other reason was price). As for hardware price, a lot of it's already pretty cheap. The Quest 2 just got dropped to $200 (presumably to clear out stock), and prices couldn't really get much lower while still providing decent hardware. Or could they? What if VR hardware manufacturers (particularly Meta and/or Sony) adopted the cellphone business model? Most people have no idea how much their cellphone actually costs, since they got it either cheap or free when they signed up to a multi-year service contract billed monthly. Their service provider subsidizes the cost of the hardware, knowing they'll recoup their costs and make a profit over the course of their contract. Both Meta and Sony have monthly subscription services (though Sony's currently includes next to no VR content, but that could change). They could similarly subsidize the cost of their headsets if users signed on to a multi-year contract billed monthly. The platform holder would have to integrate software which would ensure users are keeping up on their payments, but such things wouldn't be very difficult. And the upside would be huge. They would lock users into years of their subscription service, and in exchange could carve hundreds of dollars off the price of their VR hardware. How many Quest 2's would sell if it was free on a monthly plan which also gave you free games? How many PSVR 2's could Sony sell if it cost $300 instead of $550, and all you had to do was sign up to a few more years of a service that most PS5 owners already want or have? These are the ways to move VR forward. Produce better content by standing on the shoulders of giants rather than trying to start from scratch. Market the hardware effectively and give people the chance to try it. And finally, drop the price as low as possible by subsidizing it via a monthly service contract. Thank you for attending my TED talk 😜
All interesting points, I think these are valid solutions but still ask for the industry to A. Eat the cost of making VR headsets (besides Meta, a lot of companies don't want to do this, and meta has lost billions of dollars because they are doing this.) and B. asking for games that don't fully utilize VR. I completely agree that 80% of VR game devs building from scratch always seem to miss the mark on how to make good controls, good stories, good mechanics ext. but I think to not try to make those kinds of games and focus instead on taking standard games and make them work with vr would lose the magic. This is more me just engaging with your ideas, not attacking them, I think fundamentally you are completely right, but I think the best course of action is all of this. More regular games ported by companies to be VR games, thus drawing in more people, thus giving indie devs more of a pool of consumers to help fund their weird games. Headsets designed for work that focus on spacial computing, selling headsets more like they are cellphones, so the cost of entry goes down. I think all of this is a solid move. Thank you for sharing! I love talks like this!
AR is 100% the future of XR headsets which anyone should agree with since every company is moving its focus to that, a device strictly for gaming is not as appealing than a device that is essential like a computer, most people with computer and phones do not play games on them. It's just we are not at a point that using a XR headset is faster or more fun than using a phone is, fitness apps is also a gateway for people to be interested in VR and is more used for this purpose. Majority of my use of VR is for sleeping, social and watching a video while doing chores (quest 3 is awesome for this). The problem that XR is heading towards is being a AIO device that can do everything, if you have a device that can do everything it will dilute or neglect features of a headset which also applies to phones, you can work entirely from a phone but it is not efficient for some tasks or impossible for some. We are still at the phase of figuring out what people want to use XR, who it's for and how could we get the original iPhone reaction from people that they need a XR headset. No one knows what VR will look like in a year or two, but it's probably going to head towards smaller, lighter and more concealed devices with either hand tracking or via neural input. Controllers are not going to be in the future of VR so it is very cool to see John Apple not include controllers, it does open up the gimmicky phase XR is in right now though.
my 2 cents: 1) Quest 2 was the most popular device, but that was largely fueled by in unfulfilled promises of metaverse and GTA, so it ended up collecting dust; 2) once they saw massive numbers in 2021, devs started porting games but that takes time and only recently they're releasing - and finding audiences long gone... VR has been sadly flopping since 2016 and even Quest gleam of hope and psvr 2 and AVP did nothing to change that. As far as I can tell from available stats, sales for most new games have been abysmal (AC Nexus at above 200k is great by comparison yet awful for AAA) and I've been watching couple few weeks many content creators going completely radio silent... WW3 for VR is already here...
Are the numbers bad in comparison to what we'd expect a AAA title with cross platform release get? Or are the numbers disappointing in relation to the available hardware out there? If it's the former that's probaby impossible to match those numbers since there' not even enough VR headsets to match those. But if it's the latter than maybe the hype came before the tech was ready. Which would be a shame. I just got a MetaQuest 3 and it's beyond where I thought we were in VR. I still think there's hope for VR. Valve are still working on stuff, and I'm pretty sure we're due for a reveal of the Index 2 or whatever they'll decide to call it.
The Quest 2 was also largely fuelled by the pandemic lockdowns, as a lot of people were stuck in small houses or apartments and wanted a way to escape their daily reality. Now that things have opened back up, many of those people left VR and haven't come back. IMO it isn't an issue that the hardware wasn't ready (though the Quest 2 is lacking in power), it's more an issue that there weren't enough compelling games and experiences to keep people interested. Too many games were too short or felt too shallow or were too unpolished. And most users never heard of the higher quality indie games. All this lead to retention rates somewhere around 10% on a month to month basis, according to Meta's own numbers. I really believe VR's biggest problem is the quality of software isn't high enough for most people to buy one in the first place, or put up with the increased friction/effort to keep using them when they do.
I think your saying. " We don't have the hardwere and software, right now, to get to where VR needs to be in order to go main stream. But we have the "Vision" of where it will be." With that being said, "as a follower of VR since Oculus Quest." YES. Hang in there VR enthusiast. The future looks good for spacial computing.
I think that’s a pretty good point which I hadn’t thought about before. If Apple (and others) can convince people that spacial computing is the starting point for all interaction with a computer then everything else just follows. If all your dealings with computers is through vr then why would you ever return to flatscreen for a game? Cheers dude.
Appreciate your video, but I think the VR market just needs us waiting, literally. Meta did something great, which resulted in slowing down the market short term, but made it much more viable long term and a surviving market. If meta did not enter, only highend VR would have worked, which will eventually die later on because of the small masses, and because of slow progress. Meta saved that directly, they spent crazy amount of money to make R&D progress so fast, yet make available tech cheaper, while also making the "next" technologies technically available within few years, its because they kept persistent in the market that now all of the other big corporates like apple samsung etc coming in the market. Now whats the state of VR? Its just like EVs 5 years ago, There are no evs cause there are not enough public EV chargers, but there are no chargers because there are not enough EVs. In 3 years, when Micro Oleds get a lot cheaper and slightly better, (while every other tech in VR gets better) the VR market will blow up, because more people will buy ^good enough^ headsets, and more developers will finally make good games because now we have a market in VR
Fantastically said! I agree with all of this, I honestly think the verafocal headset prototypes Meta had shown us will be a huge leap forward when we see them in a product, the future for VR is as bright as ever!
Magnavox Odyssey am i nothing to you i think vr has had this problem from the start it's not convenient to put on you need space there's a high cost barrier to entry even the apple vision has the sweat and pressure marks of wearing it once the novelty wears off a lot of people just put it down because as i mentioned above far outweigh the positives of it the
Cant wait to join a vr game in 20 years and pull the "back in my day...."
"back in my day we had to use buttons and analog sticks to move in vr, none of this fancy BCI stuff!"
I think you’re right, there was a pretty unexpected “long road” ahead to VR actually becoming enjoyable enough for every household, but I’m pretty optimistic we’re making strides to get there. I mean there’s a few companies coming out with their own headsets so that says something!
Oh, Absolutely! It has been growing steadily, I think we all just hoped that it would get huge right away, but I will take slow progress over no progress :)
VR was made popular in less than 8 years ago, people are still innovating, it takes a while to make something like that good
I completely agree, I really feel like we are kind of still in VR beta. But it's wonderful seeing how fast it's growing :)
An interesting idea. I disagree. So-called "spatial comuting" has been around in myriad forms since the early day of the resurgence in the form of streaming from a competent machine. But it has failed to achieve both high retention, and indicate a significant market. Apple's device clearly is a replica of their mobile devices, implying the types of software we see on mobile devices.
However, there is one thing in VR that has been highly successful when deployed: hybrid games/software. It has the benefit of lower development cost (dramatically), increasing target audience (including traditional gamers), and making the platform less niche. However, the VR media has been VERY clear that hybrid games are "inferior" and should not be arguing by way of a false dichotomy that VR content should be made "from the ground up". This cultural norm, I believe, has kept the medium from being another type of display, to being a ridiculously niche platform.
There's nothing to suggest hybrids would in any way threaten ground-up games, but help them by way of a larger market. And if ground-up games are superior (which they CAN be), they would thrive in such an environment. But adopting a mobile strategy increases forces for short-form content that tends to be heavy on mechanics, but light on story and world building which are common in long-form games.
Thankfully Capcom and Sony have shown the merits of hybrid games and their high attach even with non-VR gamers, and Flat2VR is leading the charge in a concerted effort to port games to VR with modding software, and now a studio that facilitates such actions on behalf of willing studios. If there is hope for VR, I believe it is this.
I largely agree with you. The only thing I'd point out about hybrids is that while they're great for VR users, their appeal to the flat audience diminishes dramatically when there's a delay in adding the VR mode. Ideally the VR mode would be present at launch, but the nature of modern game development and standard industry practices make that unlikely. Companies know that most of their sales will be from flat gamers, so if they're struggling to meet their launch date (which almost every game is, as evidenced by egregious launch issues and massive day-one patches), the VR content would be the first thing jettisoned into a future patch.
On the other hand, adding VR to a game that's years old can actually be more exciting than a game getting its VR mode within a year of launch. Something like Skyrim VR came along years after the flat version launched, so many people were excited to revisit a fondly remembered classic in a new way. I think some of the hybrid games on PSVR 2 sadly fell into that awkward timeframe where most people had bought and played the flat game when it launched, and it was too soon for them to be interested in playing it again. IMO there would've been way more hype for the Resident Evil hybrid modes if instead of making RE Village a PSVR 2 launch game, Capcom had gotten RE4 Remake's VR mode ready for that game's launch, then did RE Village after.
@@GreyMatterShades I largely agree.
I would say that the value of building that demand warrants even later hybrids. When games like Madison VR and RE4 VR and GT7 VR release, they (along with VR) get pulled into the mainstream gaming conversation, despite their late debuts.
Optimizing timing aside, I think PSVR2 simply needs far more hybrids. IMO, there should be a few notable hybrids/ports launched every month, rather than a few each year.
UEVR studio is, IMO, the most exciting development in VR in 12 years.
VR is the Future, nothing will come close to it.
Couldn't agree more!
I only recently got my first VR Headset the MetaQuest 3. And holy crap, I had no idea we had come this far with VR. I'm disappointed in the adoption rate and VR dedicated titles. But we're definitely going in the right direction. Sounds silly but my hurdle to VR adoption was dealing with cables, and the lighthouses. When I saw the meta quest 3 offered hand & controller tracking without those. I decided to give it a shot. And wow. The controller and hand tracking are both mindblowing. To watch your hands/swords or whatever move 1:1 is very impressive.
The resolution and refresh rate are just wow. And I'm really impressed at how good Air Link works. Managed to play a fast pace game like Overload and couldnt' tell that I was connected wireless to my computer while playing with my mouse & keyboard.
I think there's probably a lot of people like me that don't realize where the tech is at now.
You’re attachment to the PC is holding you back, just like to many people’s attachment to mobile phone level processing for VR is holding them back.
No significant number of people will pay 3,600k for an VR HMD. Beyond that the real sales pitch for Apple Vision is “It will make you more Efficient at Work.” Being more efficient in the grand scheme of things basically means you’re getting more work dumped on you and people will be laid off. Who wants to do that in 2024?
The future for the masses is PSVR2-PSVR3 etc.
The problem with attempting to use PC as a baseline is that Stereo rendering requires too much processing to be included in a bloated runtime/executable that requires code for every CPU and GPU imaginable. Every computer is made less capable to allow every computer to be compatible.
Some people are straight up in denial about this, some people don’t know because they are using prefabbed engines like Unity, Unreal, Godot and they never stopped to think about the overhead for the actual runtime hogging resources. The console exe’s are way smaller, allowing them to run faster, more efficiently and use a fraction of the resources.
PlayStation having 1 config. Or 2 with the forthcoming PS5 “Pro” makes life for the exe way easier, thus giving the developer access to more faster in a reliable way.
Since Sony is making PSVR2 compatible with PCs more developers will use that as a gateway to get their games on PS5 once they see how big the audience is there that actually buys more games than talk about VR tech.
Assassin’s Creed bombed on Quest and the PCVR community that actually buys AAA games is smaller than that.
The built-in efficiencies of building for a single hardware configuration and the processing headroom you get back is going to start showing up in larger budgeted PSVR2 games on PlayStation in 2025. (Behemoth seems like one)
Once enough devs start pushing that way the engine developers will pivot to more VR efficient builds and make more complex creations accessible to devs.
Look if every other company could produce a $300 dollar head set that has stand alone, without wires they would see the profits they want. Meta is the only one who's target audience was under $30,000 annual income. I hope facebook keeps going because people really do want this technology.
vr really stunted itself during lockdown it had as big surge in popularity but only company that did anything with that popularity was meta but a lot of people avoided meta because the required a Facebook account now its a little different but also popularity has died down. just sad more companies didn't jump at the popularity surge
Come across this video as my first ever VR headset (quest 2) has literally just arrived today.
I think with the idea of VR takeoff, it isn't just about the cutting edge high end, but the low end entry point too.
For a lot of people (like me) who are sort of maybe interested in VR, we have only just hit the point where the minimum acceptable quality has crossed over with the minimum acceptable price.
The quest 2 is currently selling better than the quest 3. I got mine for under £200 and I wouldn't have considered anything higher.
I think a lot of this low end buy-in will help drive / fund future innovation just as much as the "apple factor" will with the high end spacial computing.
As someone who has been in it since the beginning, Welcome aboard! We are so excited to have you and hope you love it! Honestly, I love this comment so much because it's a perspective I hadn't thought about, but very happy to hear! I think all it's just going to keep getting better and better.
I basically said the same thing in a much, much longer comment. For most people who have never tried or only dabbled in VR, the content on offer (or at least their perception of it) doesn't justify the price being asked. That's the biggest issue holding VR back. The vast majority of new adoption is going to come from the low-end entry point.
Hopefully the industry takes strides toward addressing that issue from both sides. Better content and lower prices.
IMO VR games could be better if developers shared/licensed technology more rather than reinventing the wheel every time, and prices could be lowered if companies subsidized their hardware via contracts for monthly-billed services, similar to the cell phone model.
Really hope you enjoy your entry into VR. If you're into gaming, I'd recommend the Moss games, Pistol Whip, and the Red Matter series. They're all great games and good for VR newcomers.
One of the major things that keeps me from indulging in the VR space is ad placement in the inability to block the ads. I don't ever have to watch an ad when I watch video content on my computer or cell phone but on these VR proprietary headsets with proprietary software, there won't be any ad blockers in place for streaming services such as UA-cam and Tubi. I do not know if I would be able to install and utilize the brave browser so that I can circumvent ads and if not, that is a complete deal breaker for me. If I am not able to get the content without ads then I don't want it and I don't need it. I understand very well that this is a pay to play system we are in and I guarantee the people that are creating this technology are thinking of multiple different ways in which they can take money out of the consumer's pocket any which way they can deem necessary. I personally live outside of compulsive consumerism and bombardment of ads and commercials. I refuse to allow myself to be commercialized like that and I try my best to get around it whenever possible. I know I have no flawless system but I do my best and what I mainly consume on a TV is video content and entertainment and that is the exact place where a lot of ads and commercialization happen. The VR space as I am aware, would give the marketing industrial complex and avenue to bombard us with overlay pop-ups and suggestions throughout our daily lives and routines.
Interesting, that wasn't something I considered! I should look into what kind of web browsing options currently exsist for VR, if I find anything worth looking into I will let you know!
Literally, Couldn't Agree More
i really hope valve makes a new headset, standalone or pcvr again, the index is great but its 4-5 years old now with old vr tech.
I am right there with you, I want my next headset to be valves new headset, I just hope I don't have to wait to long...
When you say VR is just a fragile spark that would have died without Meta, I don't agree with that at all. VR is not fragile and can not die. The technologies necessary to build VR exist now. Meta and every other company involved in VR could go out of business tomorrow, and other companies... new companies... would pick up that torch. It can be done, so someone will do it.
I would argue that Meta has done more harm to the growth of the VR industry than good. This company fractured the fledgling VR industry into fragments with exclusives before it was ready and immediately turned VR hardware into a race to bottom. This did make VR hardware affordable for more people sooner, but it also made it much more difficult for any company to innovate new and better VR hardware because they couldn't sell anything more expensive than Quest. The Valve Index was generally considered the best consumer VR headset you could buy for 5 years not because it was so great, but because previously rapid VR hardware advancement slowed to a crawl after the release of the Quest 2.
If Facebook had never bought Oculus, other companies would have taken up the mantle instead. Other companies _were_ taking up the mantle. And maybe these other companies would have gotten into their own shenanigans which would have slowed industry growth, too. But I think it's a low bar for them to have done better than the mess Facebook/Meta made of things.
The best effect that the entrance of Apple is having on the VR industry is causing other companies to abandon following Meta in their race to the bottom and instead turn to innovating again. Make the product desirable first, and then make it cheap. Whereas Meta has done it in the opposite order, and it predictably hasn't worked out very well.
Other companies are getting into the mix again, and I'm cautiously hopeful about where that's going to go. I think we're past the original hype now and getting into more real sustained growth.
Oh trust me, I am no fan of Meta, I think you raise many good points, and I'm truly hopeful that you are right about the effect apple will have on other companies entering the market! The future for VR is an exciting one, and I'm happy all of us are on this journey together!
Developers need to embrace more simplistic design versus trying to recreate reality. There's a game for PCVR called compound. Holy crap, it's got Wolfenstein 3D type of graphics for textures. And it just looks awesome and works!
Just found your channel. Hearing your opinion was interesting but I fundamentally disagree with you. AVP and spatial computing are definitely not the solution.
The biggest problem with VR is that not enough people will buy a headset because the content on offer (at least how non-users perceive it) isn't compelling enough to justify the price of the hardware.
For someone who hasn't tried VR, getting into VR means paying hundreds of dollars to play games which look worse than their PC/console games. The only options to resolve this problem are 1) improve the perceived quality of the content, or 2) reduce the price of the hardware. Ideally the industry would tackle both.
On the first point, the perceived quality of content could be improved by either actually improving its quality, or by improving the public's perception of it. Improving the quality of software isn't easy since the current VR userbase isn't big enough to justify the large budgets which high quality content often requires. However I think there's an obvious way for game developers to produce better games without increasing their budget: Find someone who's already made a game with the mechanics you want, and license their code from them.
There's far too much reinventing the wheel going on in the VR space; and at the end of a multi-year development cycle, most developers don't wind up moving the industry forward, they just wind up with a shittier wheel. Their time and effort would be much better spent refining/differentiating the solid foundation they've licensed and building compelling content. Mighty Eyes' VRAF framework for Unreal could be a big step in this direction.
On the other hand, perception of the quality of content could be improved with better marketing. Unfortunately VR is very difficult to advertise, since the things that make it great can't easily be conveyed via any other medium. It also doesn't help that most VR games don't look particularly good, especially since the market almost entirely shifted to standalone headsets. Still, better marketing campaigns which show off some of the more visually impressive VR games could help in this area.
But by far the best marketing strategy for a VR headset is having public demos in places where normal people can give it a try. The pandemic put a damper on such things for years, but now that we've returned to a relative state of normalcy, platform holders should start doing this again. Sony did it extensively with PSVR 1, and I think that's one of the reasons it was the best selling headset until the Quest 2 (the other reason was price).
As for hardware price, a lot of it's already pretty cheap. The Quest 2 just got dropped to $200 (presumably to clear out stock), and prices couldn't really get much lower while still providing decent hardware. Or could they? What if VR hardware manufacturers (particularly Meta and/or Sony) adopted the cellphone business model?
Most people have no idea how much their cellphone actually costs, since they got it either cheap or free when they signed up to a multi-year service contract billed monthly. Their service provider subsidizes the cost of the hardware, knowing they'll recoup their costs and make a profit over the course of their contract.
Both Meta and Sony have monthly subscription services (though Sony's currently includes next to no VR content, but that could change). They could similarly subsidize the cost of their headsets if users signed on to a multi-year contract billed monthly. The platform holder would have to integrate software which would ensure users are keeping up on their payments, but such things wouldn't be very difficult. And the upside would be huge. They would lock users into years of their subscription service, and in exchange could carve hundreds of dollars off the price of their VR hardware.
How many Quest 2's would sell if it was free on a monthly plan which also gave you free games? How many PSVR 2's could Sony sell if it cost $300 instead of $550, and all you had to do was sign up to a few more years of a service that most PS5 owners already want or have?
These are the ways to move VR forward. Produce better content by standing on the shoulders of giants rather than trying to start from scratch. Market the hardware effectively and give people the chance to try it. And finally, drop the price as low as possible by subsidizing it via a monthly service contract.
Thank you for attending my TED talk 😜
All interesting points, I think these are valid solutions but still ask for the industry to A. Eat the cost of making VR headsets (besides Meta, a lot of companies don't want to do this, and meta has lost billions of dollars because they are doing this.) and B. asking for games that don't fully utilize VR. I completely agree that 80% of VR game devs building from scratch always seem to miss the mark on how to make good controls, good stories, good mechanics ext. but I think to not try to make those kinds of games and focus instead on taking standard games and make them work with vr would lose the magic.
This is more me just engaging with your ideas, not attacking them, I think fundamentally you are completely right, but I think the best course of action is all of this. More regular games ported by companies to be VR games, thus drawing in more people, thus giving indie devs more of a pool of consumers to help fund their weird games. Headsets designed for work that focus on spacial computing, selling headsets more like they are cellphones, so the cost of entry goes down. I think all of this is a solid move.
Thank you for sharing! I love talks like this!
You deserve more subscribers and views
AR is 100% the future of XR headsets which anyone should agree with since every company is moving its focus to that, a device strictly for gaming is not as appealing than a device that is essential like a computer, most people with computer and phones do not play games on them. It's just we are not at a point that using a XR headset is faster or more fun than using a phone is, fitness apps is also a gateway for people to be interested in VR and is more used for this purpose. Majority of my use of VR is for sleeping, social and watching a video while doing chores (quest 3 is awesome for this). The problem that XR is heading towards is being a AIO device that can do everything, if you have a device that can do everything it will dilute or neglect features of a headset which also applies to phones, you can work entirely from a phone but it is not efficient for some tasks or impossible for some.
We are still at the phase of figuring out what people want to use XR, who it's for and how could we get the original iPhone reaction from people that they need a XR headset. No one knows what VR will look like in a year or two, but it's probably going to head towards smaller, lighter and more concealed devices with either hand tracking or via neural input. Controllers are not going to be in the future of VR so it is very cool to see John Apple not include controllers, it does open up the gimmicky phase XR is in right now though.
my 2 cents: 1) Quest 2 was the most popular device, but that was largely fueled by in unfulfilled promises of metaverse and GTA, so it ended up collecting dust; 2) once they saw massive numbers in 2021, devs started porting games but that takes time and only recently they're releasing - and finding audiences long gone...
VR has been sadly flopping since 2016 and even Quest gleam of hope and psvr 2 and AVP did nothing to change that. As far as I can tell from available stats, sales for most new games have been abysmal (AC Nexus at above 200k is great by comparison yet awful for AAA) and I've been watching couple few weeks many content creators going completely radio silent... WW3 for VR is already here...
Are the numbers bad in comparison to what we'd expect a AAA title with cross platform release get? Or are the numbers disappointing in relation to the available hardware out there? If it's the former that's probaby impossible to match those numbers since there' not even enough VR headsets to match those. But if it's the latter than maybe the hype came before the tech was ready. Which would be a shame. I just got a MetaQuest 3 and it's beyond where I thought we were in VR. I still think there's hope for VR. Valve are still working on stuff, and I'm pretty sure we're due for a reveal of the Index 2 or whatever they'll decide to call it.
The Quest 2 was also largely fuelled by the pandemic lockdowns, as a lot of people were stuck in small houses or apartments and wanted a way to escape their daily reality. Now that things have opened back up, many of those people left VR and haven't come back. IMO it isn't an issue that the hardware wasn't ready (though the Quest 2 is lacking in power), it's more an issue that there weren't enough compelling games and experiences to keep people interested. Too many games were too short or felt too shallow or were too unpolished. And most users never heard of the higher quality indie games.
All this lead to retention rates somewhere around 10% on a month to month basis, according to Meta's own numbers.
I really believe VR's biggest problem is the quality of software isn't high enough for most people to buy one in the first place, or put up with the increased friction/effort to keep using them when they do.
Waiting for RTX 5090 and Unreal Nanite/Lumen
Same, it will be amazing in VR
I think your saying. " We don't have the hardwere and software, right now, to get to where VR needs to be in order to go main stream. But we have the "Vision" of where it will be." With that being said, "as a follower of VR since Oculus Quest." YES. Hang in there VR enthusiast. The future looks good for spacial computing.
Absolutely this!
I think that’s a pretty good point which I hadn’t thought about before. If Apple (and others) can convince people that spacial computing is the starting point for all interaction with a computer then everything else just follows. If all your dealings with computers is through vr then why would you ever return to flatscreen for a game? Cheers dude.
im supprised u dont got more viewers… great video👍
I really appreciate that, thank you so much!
Please link videos and things you reference in the description of your video.
Oh! My bad, will do!
Appreciate your video, but I think the VR market just needs us waiting, literally.
Meta did something great, which resulted in slowing down the market short term, but made it much more viable long term and a surviving market.
If meta did not enter, only highend VR would have worked, which will eventually die later on because of the small masses, and because of slow progress.
Meta saved that directly, they spent crazy amount of money to make R&D progress so fast, yet make available tech cheaper, while also making the "next" technologies technically available within few years, its because they kept persistent in the market that now all of the other big corporates like apple samsung etc coming in the market.
Now whats the state of VR?
Its just like EVs 5 years ago,
There are no evs cause there are not enough public EV chargers, but there are no chargers because there are not enough EVs. In 3 years, when Micro Oleds get a lot cheaper and slightly better, (while every other tech in VR gets better) the VR market will blow up, because more people will buy ^good enough^ headsets, and more developers will finally make good games because now we have a market in VR
Fantastically said! I agree with all of this, I honestly think the verafocal headset prototypes Meta had shown us will be a huge leap forward when we see them in a product, the future for VR is as bright as ever!
Dude you have vr mask face. Take a break dude
Haha NEVER! Soon it will just be my face like maelstrom from cyberpunk 2077
Magnavox Odyssey am i nothing to you
i think vr has had this problem from the start it's not convenient to put on you need space there's a high cost barrier to entry
even the apple vision has the sweat and pressure marks of wearing it
once the novelty wears off a lot of people just put it down because as i mentioned above far outweigh the positives of it the
Still so many problems to figure out, but I agree
Xbox series x