I wonder if it's profitable right now or that they see a future were it's so important to the loss is worth it.
Microsoft Research is a classic example - some of the smartest people in the world are being paid big salaries to do nothing much of anything at all. But then imagine what those same people could do had they worked at a startup or doing open source...
Push comes to shove, I guess Facebook could launch their own mobile platform too? They already have their own Android phone - it's buried inside the Quest headset. But they probably don't need to, unless Apple/Google disallows the use of Facebook SDK by all the other apps in their app stores. Until then, the sweet sweet surveillance data will keep flowing.
VR is here, now. The Quest is it. It's the real deal. The combination of standalone wireless play, precise inside-out environment sensing and hand tracking, heightened graphics quality, a substantial software library, and an attractive price point have finally hit the sweet spot.
It's a shame that Facebook is the sole proprietor of this revolutionary device, but the device IS revolutionary. I've demoed VR for three non-technical friends in the last month who all promptly ran out and bought Quests of their own. I'm very excited for the future, and present, of this medium.
Because I think VR is a non-starter for the above reasons. The tech difference between 1990 and 2020 is amazing — but I don't think tech is what dooms VR as it stands.
Is it the claustrophobia? Is it the unsettling detachment from your "actual" reality?
I just don't think it's going to become mainstream anymore than skydiving has become mainstream.
Most of them play online mobile games because that gets the rush quicker and easier.
Trying to sell an overly complex, bulky, expensive and high-investment video game system to the coming generations will be a very uphill battle.
(We saw this with TV; for the boomer generation TV was high technology, and getting on TV was the highest aspiration in life. Who even watches broadcast TV now?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/m2t7jl/chil...
I'm saying that they don't care about chasing the purported innovation dragon and don't view video games as an elite and hip pastime.
For them it's just a guilty pleasure that they do while taking a break from actual life.
As such, they'll gravitate towards the local optima that get them the dopamine rush faster and easier. Betting on VR as the "next big thing" is the wrong bet.
Cool. Can we stop calling it 'the future' then?
Hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars were 'the future'.
Much like with steam engines in ancient Rome, the technological and economical context at the turn of 20th century wasn't right for the mass adoption of electric cars. Technological environment stayed wrong until the turn of 21th century, and the economical environment stayed wrong until Tesla single-handedly dragged the market, kicking and screaming, into accepting electric cars as a viable product.
Similarly, we had VR since at least the 90s, but the technological environment was bad then. It's right now, and it's the Oculus Quest line that made a pivotal change in the market acceptance.
--
Meh, by that same argument you could say VR is the past. The point of the discussion is that VR is now at a point were it will most likely get adopted, instead of just being a feat. Hence the comparison with electric vehicles.
And no, hydrogen fuel-cell for mobility won't be the future. A niche in some sectors for sure, but that's it. The efficiency is just as bad (~40%) as with combustion engines. And that's not even taking production and transport into account. Sure, it's cleaner, but the whole "hydrogen is the future for everyday use" is lobbyism from people who want to keep their current infrastructure (especially transport and production) running ...
Not all games work well in VR. For example, I would not want to play World of Warcraft in VR. Your character has too many abilities that you couldn't possibly map them out on a VR controller, and even if you could, it'd be immersion breaking.
Games played from a top-down view like RTS or colony/base/city builders, or games that might involve looking at a lot of text, would probably not work well either.
> you couldn't possibly map them out on a VR controller
Hand tracking + 10 fingers, possibilities are endless! Like casting spells for real.
> Games played from a top-down view like RTS or colony/base/city builders
Fly over the map like some kind of a demigod and manipulate cities directly? Sign me up.
Gestures in general just might not work well, especially using the same gesture over and over. Have you played WoW? If you're a caster, you're casting a spell every 1-3 seconds, and targeting as a healer might not work well, not to mention seeing all the health bars.
Also, I don't know how it would work for melee abilities at all.
Sure, you could do an RPG with gestures and the like for spell casting, and make melee combat interesting, but it wouldn't be WoW.
> Fly over the map like some kind of a demigod and manipulate cities directly? Sign me up.
The problem is the UI. Graphical UIs in VR are very limited since motion controls are not nearly as precise as a mouse, so buttons have to be big. Cities: Skylines would certainly look cool in VR, but the actual gameplay would suffer.
The word "borrowed" stands out for me: I also tried a cutting edge VR headset loaned from a co-worker but did not then rush out and buy one. Because the experience felt like more of a "novelty", not a day-to-day thing that I would switch over to.
And sitting down looking forward in a vr goggle, and turning your character around with a mouse induces wild nausea for a number* of people.
*I’m unfamiliar with the exact ratio.
Video games are only a way to get a quick dopanine rush, and that's the local optimum that gets you your rush quickest and easiest.
VR is not needed.