The HTTP of VR
roderickkennedy.com
roderickkennedy.com
A metaverse client for a high-detail virtual world has most of the problems of an MMO client plus many of the problems of a web browser. First, much of what you're doing is time-sensitive. You have a stream of high-priority events in each direction that have to be dealt with quickly but don't have a high data volume. Then you have a lot of stuff that's less time critical.
The event stream is usually over UDP in the game world. Since you might lose a packet, that's a problem. Most games have "unreliable" packets, which, if lost, are superseded by later packets. ("Where is avatar now" is a typical use.) You'd like to have that stream on a higher quality of service than the others, if only ISPs and routers actually paid attention to that.
Then you have the less-critical stuff, which needs reliability. ("Object X enters world" is a typical use.) I'd use TCP for that, but Second Life has its own not very good UDP-based protocol, with a fixed retransmit timer. Reliable delivery, in-order delivery, no head of line blocking - pick two. TCP chooses the first two, SL's protocol chooses the first and third ones. Out of order delivery after a retransmit can cause avatars to lose clothing items, because the child item arrived before the parent item.
Then you have asset fetching. In Second Life/Open Simulator this is straight HTTP/1. But there are some unusual tricks. Textures are stored in progressive JPEG 2000. It's possible to open a connection and just read a few hundred bytes to get a low-rez version. Then, the client can stop reading for a while, put the low-rez version on screen, and wait to see if there's a need to keep reading, or just close the connection because a higher-rez version is not needed. The poor server has to tolerate a large number of stalled connections. Worse, the actual asset servers on AWS are front-ended by Akamai, which is optimized for browser-type behavior. Requesting an asset from an Akamai cache results in fetching the entire asset from AWS, even if only part of it is needed. There's a suspicion that large numbers of partial reads and stalled reads from clients sometimes causes Akamai's anti-DDOS detection to trip and throttle the data flow.
So those are just some of the issues "the HTTP of VR" must handle. Most are known to MMO designers. The big difference in virtual worlds is there's far more dynamic asset loading. How well that's managed has a strong influence on how consistent the world looks. It has to be constantly re-prioritized as the viewpoint moves.
(Demo, from my own work: https://vimeo.com/user28693218 This shows the client frantically trying to load the textures from the network before the camera gets close. Not all the tricks to make that look good are in this demo.)
It's not an overwhelmingly hard problem, but botch it and you will be laughed off Steam.
There's not a lot I liked about Unity when I was working with it full-time a few years ago. But the one thing I could acknowledge that it has that was generally missing from open source web development was the asset pipeline. But dynamic, user-uploaded assets won't be able to use the asset pipeline. So one of the biggest drivers for using Unity goes right out the window.
Not Unreal Engine 4, either. UE5 has "asset streaming" and "open worlds", but mostly static and loaded from a local SSD on a Playstation 5. That's working nicely.
Asset management from the network is the real difference with seamless, modifiable virtual world systems. Otherwise, it's a minute of "...LOADING..." when you move to the next area. You need clients, servers, file formats, and protocols designed for it. It's a moderately hard engineering problem, and, as yet, there are no good off the shelf solutions.
There's a "check out, check in" approach. Decentraland uses that. You check out your parcel into a local Unity environment, edit, and check in the whole parcel to make it visible to others.
The Spatial OS people, Improbable, did some of this, but their solution cost so much to operate server side that all four of the games that used it went broke. So Improbable is trying to pivot to military simulation.
Probably by UE6 this will all be standard. It's one of those things that has to be done to move the metaverse from hype to usefulness.
It's also very hard to depreciate old systems. The game is 18 years old, but there were real money transactions from day one. If a user bought something ten years ago, they expect to still be able to use it!
You can imagine a clean-sheet design that does away with all this. Make the world static, player avatars pre-baked. Most SL competitors do this. (Facebook Spaces, Playstation Home etc) This gives you better FPS and a much more consistent aesthetic, since all the assets are made in-house. But now what? The classic Metaverse problem, there's just not that much to do. Cutting features from SL makes this worse, not better.
Runs 55-60FPS in a crowded area.
Over-complicated avatar clothing is a separate problem. This is a huge deal in Second Life, because it's the greatest dress-up virtual world ever built. Users expect a lot. The tattoo layer has to show through mesh stockings, for example. I have some ideas on speeding that up but haven't implemented anything. What's needed is an optimization step that takes place when an avatar changes clothes. All the layers of meshes need to be crunched down to a simplified game-type combined mesh. In a game, that would be done during asset building. In a world where you can change clothes, mixing and matching items, it has to be done somewhere near run time. But not on every frame, just at clothing changes. This is already done for textures; all the texture clothing layers of an avatar are baked down to one. Roblox does something like this in their experimental mesh avatar system.
There's a mindset that this is impossible, shared by the low end of metaverse developers. It's not shared by Roblox or Epic or IMVU, who are busy solving the problem. This is a moderately hard problem, but it's not impossible.
Linden Lab staff had convinced themselves that it was impossible to speed up the viewer. After some people in Linden Lab management saw what I'd done, somehow there suddenly was much more effort going into improving the viewer FPS in their C++ client.
The Roblox solution looks terrible; bloated, bug prone and poor performing. I manage 2000 non-instanced characters (each with a interchangeable weapon) on a 1050Ti.
I'm going with royalty free assets that I happen to have a custom agreement to because of an early adopter advantage which allows me to redistribute them not only in a game but also with my open-source engine.
The content being editable creates headaches and decreases improvement of technology since more time is wasted on supporting more and more data for zero gameplay benefit.
Physics is the gameplay changer for MMO games, and it needs to be implemented in the game and not in some external library to be efficient/specialized enough to scale in a MMO setting.
The big problem with remote rendering is that it costs too much. "Cloud gaming" startups have appeared and disappeared for years now. If they charge too little, they go broke, and if they charge too much, users leave. NVidia cloud gaming is currently $10/month for 6 hour sessions. So is Stadia, now. That's not too bad, but it may be a loss leader. NVidia already doubled their price once. Startups with similar offerings are charging around $45/month.
1) Asset bundles are the Unity "favored" means of supporting dynamic content. However, they are extremely heavy and have to be authored in the Unity editor. So you could do things like release new levels for an offline game, or new environments and items for a MMO, but user-generated content gets really hard to do. It's possible, with running the Unity editor headless, but that's so fraught with peril that it really shouldn't be considered.
2) Primitive, binary assets like textures and audio tracks are the easiest thing to load over the 'net in Unity, but last I checked, decoding them was still implemented on the UI thread. The download itself happens off-thread, but you'll have too large of a performance hit for devices like the Oculus Quest 2 with even a few textures: you will drop frames all over the floor. It's so bad that I had to find, fix, and compile in a full C# implementation of JPEG just to support dynamic texture loading without dropping frames on HoloLens 1, Oculus Go, and Quest 1. I quit using Unity by the time Quest 2 came out, but it's not so much more powerful that it would move the bar far enough.
3) Again, for primitive assets, the raw, decoded data may not be the final format that you want. To use memory efficiently, there are compressed texture formats that are supported directly in GPUs. Surprise, surprise, there is no 100% cross-platform format, so tool's like Binomial's Basis can transcode between formats. This is built into Unity's asset pipeline; if you start life with a PNG file for your image, statically loaded in your Unity scene, it will get transcoded into whatever compressed format the graphics APIs that your target operating systems support. Hence part of Unity's need to have target platforms specified.
4) For 3D models, you need to figure out where you want to lie on the spectrum of small, network-transmission friendliness vs. ease of parsing. That model will then need to be converted to Unity GameObjects and Meshes, which again, takes place on the UI thread. I know of no workaround for this, other than blanking the user's view out to black just before the object creation happens so they don't see the dropped frames.
If all you're making is a card game on smartphones, nobody is going to notice dynamic asset loading causing dropped frames because your "loading" screen isn't tied to their face. But in VR, it's basically table stakes, and Unity makes half of it very hard and the other half impossible.
Of course, I think those improvements are only for asset bundles so if that's a no-go for you then there's not been much progress.
I've dreamed of the metaverse since Snow Crash and maybe before (Tron?) but ... when it comes to actually making it, lets assume unlimited CPU/GPU power and unlimited memory.
Ideally, I want the Metaverse to allow people to run their own code. Whether its VR or AR it's a shared 3D space. So I want my Nintendo "Nintendogs" to be able to run around my "Ikea furniture" with my "Google/Apple/OSM maps" showing me navigation directions and my "FB Messenger/Discord/iOS Messenger" letting me connect to people inside. In a webpage, each of these things runs in an IFRAME isolated from the other and browsers go to great lengths to disllow one spying on another.
But in this 3D space my Nitendogs can't run through the space unless they can "sense the space". They need to know where the fire hydrants are, where the side walk is, what things they're allowed to climb/chew etc. But to do that effectively means they need enough info to spy on me.
Same for all the other apps. I can use messaging apps on my phone with GPS off and full network access off so that the app can't know my location, but order for different apps in the Metaverse to do similar they'll need to know at least the virtual location of themselves and the stuff around them which is enough to track/fignerprint
You can maybe get around some of this with a massive walled garden but that arguably is not the metaverse.
The messages could be delivered as a simple XML feed. Your virtual home, or HUD knows where to place them. Through hyperlinks they know where to subscribe, or refresh, or get details. The messages don't need to know anything about placement and usage.
It would be more productive to define a layer on top of HTTP/2 so we can leverage a lot of code that already works, rather than having to spend 10-15 years creating a new spec and codebases that need maturing.
And if you're not happy with websockets for low latency bidirectional communication: it would make more sense to improve websockets rather than reinvent the wheel.
Even if you're not building a video game today and want to do something other-VR esque, I guarantee that you will inevitably end up recreating something the video game industry has done in the last 22-23 years.
Everything real-time the author of this article suggests is in the realm of something you would want for VR.
It makes sense to just take what both industries of web development and game development currently understand and build on that.
So let's take that to its logical conclusion. Let's say you wanted to navigate virtual worlds. You're going to end up having some sort of "navigator" or "explorer" or end up going on some sort of virtual "safari" of sorts.
You'll do that probably initially with HTTPS or talk to some HTTPS-based server. WebSockets are not sufficient for real-time VR based work, so you'll probably end up with some sort of, let's say, WebUDP or WebSockets with UDP functionality.
Everyone will end up wanting to build their own layers of abstraction over and over again and again so entry-level web and game developers have something to do, so it'll look like some incarnations that build on or supersede Three.js. Why?
Because everyone will have a different interpretation of what they want their camera, or user entity or actor to be able to do.
So, you'll need HTTPS, web-based UDP, some sort of localplayer series of libraries or framework, then you'll need levels or maps, because to do any sort of VR, you need a world, or worlds you can navigate.
Huh, weird. All of this just sounds like someone porting Quake to the web with VR. How boring.
Of course, if someone says "OK, yep, let's do it then," it won't be anything like that, or it will, but only superficially, because that's what happens when you live long enough to see people take technologies the broader population already knows about and cram them together.
The alternative is that Zuckerberg is an old person and no one was asking for a metaverse, just video games that don't suck eggs, and that Meta is just Mark's way of graduating Facebook to an Alphabet-type conglomerate in order to keep growth moving forward.
I seriously feel bad for kids today. You have what, Fortnite, Minecraft, and Roblox to play and that's it? Too many micro transactions and low quality games.
No 30-something is asking to put on a headset and go to the VR equivalent of Something Awful, which would probably look like a back alley with players farting on each other Jaykin' Bacon-style. You want a metaverse? That's what it would look like. There's always going to be some Something Awful/4chan/Facepunch equivalent.
No one is like "oh yeah I wanna go to work and sit in a virtual cubical with my Meta® Quest 3," and yet there are some people really disconnected from reality who think people are actually asking for that instead of, like, affordable housing or something. Weird.
"Everyone" wanting to build their own layer on top of a transport that is mature isn't an argument for building yet another transport. It is just as likely that "everyone" will want to build their own transport. And do it badly.
Everything you need to do this today already exists. You're right, you don't need to reinvent the wheel, but you'd just be screwing yourself working with a platform as crusty and stupid to work with as the web. You can reuse web protocols, but any sane person today will probably end up building a user agent unburdened by the stupidity web standards groups.
Plus a majority of usefulness wouldn't be done with HTTP. It would be done with DNS so you can do things like vrp:sweetbroandhellajeff.world, reliable UDP for anything meaningfully real-time, and some RPC protocol for packet handling. Why? Because video games do that today.
If you built a fork of Quake and exposed a way to "navigate" to worlds with an address bar of sorts, you'd be 80% of the way there.
You'll need a level format to standardize on, and various other standards would need to emerge, and most of them are probably going to be derivatives or outright ports of existing ones that are in use today.
An informal standard would emerge based on a popular client, then some attempts to hijack it would emerge. Why? Because that's what happened in the past, and what would happen all over again.
If you want to do it quickly, you're not going to use a web browser. You're talking about the same category of people who refuse to implement client side include for the web.[1]
[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2791
Edit: People already know what the requirements are at a minimum because video games exist, and all VR tech today is based on long-existing video game development techniques.
Do you want a floor? Walls? Textures? Guess you're gonna need a level format to standardize on then, yeah? Yeah.
And if nobody knows the requirements for the "metaverse" yet, then it would be too early to conclude what is needed, right?
UPDATE: turns out Facebook is heavily involved in quic and HTTP 3 already so it is likely they will go that route: https://engineering.fb.com/2020/10/21/networking-traffic/how...
Or that Facebook-the-company was receiving lots of bad press, and this is a way to dodge some of it.
Http/3 is UDP.
So whats wrong with http exactly?
For example, lets say a client is sent 3 sequential packets, p0, p1, and p2. Sadly, p1 has been dropped by network goblins. What should the client do? Well, that depends on what is in the packets. If p0-2 are messages like "append this value to a list", then it's pretty important for them to all arrive, and in-order. But if p0-2 are sequential updates to the coordinates of something then it doesn't matter if p1 is lost; you get the right final state regardless.
So in the case where you're interacting with something that's continuously moving (like, say, a person in VR) you can essentially never block on transient packet loss because there's always an update coming 10ms later. That's a big deal in terms of making the experience feel fluid.
If we're talking about a virtual web, we will not be spending the server resources on always connected apps the majority of the time. Surely we'll have heavy client side scripting for most interactions.
QUIC in theory can support this kind of lossy transport but it's not really exposed to browsers AFAIK. WebRTC is somewhat complicated to use but can support lossy streams.
Does every virtual web app need server authoritative position? No. We could imagine a world where much of the physics and rendering is client side for most apps.
Does it make sense that every virtual web app should pay for low latency server authoritative position? Also no.
Sure, some apps will want this level of synchronicity and maybe there's a place for another web standard but its silly to say that http is not feasible or that this is the only way web VR should work.
But the word "metaverse" appears in the first sentence of the post we're discussing, and real-time interaction with other people's avatars does call for this kind of protocol.
We should focus on how we bring the lessons of past 20 years into these sci-fi concepts. We need to consider how businesses find success today and bring that to VR to be successful.
I can't think of a single reason why you would go out of your way to serve HTTP over UDP for the purpose of communicating to a user agent for s/video games/virtual reality/, because no one has done that in over 20 years and if it was a good idea, it would have been done by now. But no one does it. Because there's no point.
Yes, those are the only 3 video games.
Fortnite is fun too, and paying for silly skins and dances isn’t so bad.
In modern fighter games, the industry seems to be tending toward predictive lockstep networking. This is a type of networking where if the client doesn't receive the inputs of other clients from the server, it will "predict" those inputs (usually by replaying the last received input) to give the illusion of zero latency gameplay. The drawback being that you need to implement rollback in the case where the predicted input doesn't match the real received input. When poorly executed, this could look like jittery player movement with entities rubber banding and teleporting and cause artifacts, but when done properly is mostly unnoticeable.
If you're interested in this domain, I recommend checking out https://www.ggpo.net/ which is the library used in many of the modern fighter games (notably Skullgirls). It also comes with an in depth explanation of how to implement predictive networking with rollback on your own https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cV0fY8e_SC1hIFF5E1rT8XRVRzP...
Currently it's a relatively simple bidirectional protocol over TLS. It's not fully documented yet but you can get an idea of it by looking at an example bot client in python: https://github.com/glaretechnologies/substrata-example-bot-p...
>A real-time, dynamic, stateful two-way client-server protocol. As such, it will be if not fully RTP then close to it.
Why didn't we always have this if all we needed to do was ask? So...realizing we still have the internet of today, what we actually need to rethink is html and the concept of the web as documents alone.
I would be interested to see some work on hyper-objects. As in, hypertext beyond text. The article should be "HTML for VR" and we should be musing about how to find, load, interact and link web based virtual objects.
This is a valid point, but I believe there's still enormous potential to innovate on top of WebXR. Since browser engines are open source, it's possible for upstart XR browser apps to add additional features to Gecko or Chromium that push WebXR forward.
• At the web page level, an alternative to loading a new page entirely could be to load new content into the existing page, similar to a SPA. However, like you mentioned, that wouldn't really work if you want to seamlessly transition to a WebXR experience from a 3rd party. That's where browser-level innovation could come in:
• At the browser-level, it could be possible to come up with an innovative solution to this. For example, perhaps the user could grant a site permission to load the second site in a second browser instance and then transition from the first to the second once the second has loaded. This is kind of like allowing popups in a traditional 2D browser, where a page can create a new tab with window.open(), but with the additional capability of allowing the page to programmatically navigate to the new window once it has loaded.
http://fuse.rupy.se/about.html
You also need a P2P protocol (probably some binary UDP thing) for tick based data like limb positions if you want body language.
But really VR is much less important for immersion than action MMO = Mario/Zelda with 1000+ players.
An alternative view would be that HTTP(S) would be "the HTTP of VR". With WebXR and standard JS APIs for HTTPS, async fetching, WebRTC, etc, all the items listed in "Imagine an application-layer protocol for VR with the following characteristics..." are satisfied. And the stack can use battle-tested web technologies so that it can leverage standard CDNs, cloud servers, etc.
VR has some extra constraints over 2D webpages due to tighter frames per second and latency tolerances, but most of the web protocols can get you 90% of the way there.
Something that is unique is the idea that a website is a single document where as a virtual website might take the form of an interactive object and/or an interactive space.
I would say it's an open question how we want these web based virtual objects to interact with each other. Would we want to physically pull a video object off the Google Drive shelf and drop it into the YouTube workstation? How would such an interaction be possible? Even if, as today, they just never speak directly, could those objects live in the same space or would each website fully immerse the user?
People will not switch over in droves to do their text/image/video editing in VR all of a sudden, because other than a few special design applications, there is no point in doing so...it's slower, clumsier and the input devices are much less precise than mouse&keyboard.
Another supposed target demographic, people in IT won't switch either. I see no point in virtually grabbing a glowing code-ball and throing it into the "deploy-tube", or navigate a codebase using haptic gestures with the huge meat-styluses at the end of my arms, when I can simply type `git push` or `/myAwesomeStruct`
I also have a hard time imagining management sitting in meetings while wearing a 400g headset for 3h. Or companies being willing to cough up 350+$ for every employee just so they can join meetings, when Zoom is basically free.
So, what else is there? Gaming and maybe some "recreational apps" (aka. alsogaming, only less interactive). And since not all games will take place in the same unified MMORPG-ish permanent universe (yes, people want to play in sessions, and people want to play single player, and people want to play while not connected to the internet), this will not be a paradigm-shift, but rather a new toy in an already large collection of other toys.
Just think of everything in terms of observing / monitoring / tracking and you can see why some of it will start getting pushed really hard.
There are some neat things. If I could have a virtual workspace that rivaled 4k monitors and brought my real keyboard / mouse into the VR world, I can't say I'd be opposed to setting up in a virtual office with an amazing view instead of the 10'x10' box I currently live in.
> I also have a hard time imagining management sitting in meetings while wearing a 400g headset for 3h.
I have a Quest 2 and after about 1h I need to take it off and have a break. That's not an issue for gaming, but it has a long way to go before being a productivity tool.
There's also going to be huge commercial benefits for anyone that can convince the public to adopt VR environments instead of real environments. Imagine a generation of movie goers where friends gather in a VR theater to watch the newest movie. They still pay admission, but you have no costs beyond licensing IP. There are apps on the VR stores that are already laying the ground work for that type of setup.
It's comical to the point that I don't know if people here are serious or taking the piss.
IF that happens, and IF the input devices are not weighty headsets, and IF they offer the same level of haptic feedback, count me in.
But as long as this isn't faster, easier or more reliable than typing it on a keyboard, I won't.
People don't work a certain way because it's possible. People work a certain way because it saves time, money, sanity, or simply because it's convenient.
If wearing a VR headset while coding isn't providing substantial benefits over what my current system provides, why would I do it?
>If wearing a VR headset while coding isn't providing substantial benefits over what my current system provides, why would I do it?
You wouldn't.
There are only 2 options:
Either I see the keyboard through some sort of passthrough, in which case the entire VR experience is basically just an overly expensive desktop background.
Or the keyboard is replaced by a VR representation, which relies on the device knowing where the keyboard is. Obviously, that will require a special keyboard with IR markers, so good bye custom keyboard, good bye laptop keyboard.
Oh, and I cannot see my hand movements on it, which kinda defeats the purpose of seeing the keyboard, because current hand tracking technology cannot keep up.
Neither of these offer me any benefit over the cheaper, easier and functional technology that I am using right now.
Imagine the same improvements are made to VR that were made to phones. The VR headsets are expensive bricks right now but they'll be in glasses form factor (or better) with extraordinary usability in the relatively near future. An overlay on the real world that brings remote and nearby contacts into the same room seamlessly.
> Imagine the same improvements are made to VR that were made to phones.
Your missing some important details here. The DynaTAC was the whole telephone. All the electronics and battery were in the unit. The better VR headsets need a giant PC attached to them. Even with the giant PC on mains power and brick of a headset top of the line VR experiences are pretty lackluster.
What you're talking about isn't going from the DynaTAC to the iPhone. You're talking about a giant PC on mains power with a brick of a VR headset and shrinking it to just a headset (or glasses) powered by a battery. Even if you set your VR baseline to the fully detached headsets they're not at a fully usable by normal people state.
While it's not impossible to go from the giant PC on mains power, it's unlikely to be happening in the near term. The DynaTAC was battery powered so it was a continuum of development from it to an iPhone. The DynaTAC was a user device for an existing and well developed telephone system (infrastructure and services). VR still doesn't even have that everyday use case let alone the technology to make it really workable.
This is all the more challenging because today's technology is pushing up against hard physical limits. Today's GPUs on mains power with at the cutting edge of semiconductor manufacturing are hard pressed to render 4K resolution at consistently high framerates. Mobile GPUs aren't even close. So there's still a lot of question marks between today and "realistically usable VR" and a whole lot more between that an VR sunglasses.
Besides, the hardware doesn't get much smaller than it is. The chips are not the problem, the problem is the power supply.
We have already reached a limit for phones, and that only because advertising somehow managed to convince people that it's okay for one of their most important personal electronic devices to go flat in less than a day (quick reminder that mobile phones used to last 4-5 without recharging ;-) )
So, what do we do? Put super small Li-Ion batteries into our "metaverse" devices? Not much of an immersive experience if the thing goes down after 20 minutes. So, big heavy battery it is then, and that's that about slim, cool, SciFi VR glasses.
And what about input? Displaying information is not enough, the whole thing is supposed to be interactive. Voice control only gets you so far, and is unsuitable for most interesting things we want to do (virtual keyboards, games, movement, etc.), not to mention it's not even possible in most scenarios without being permanently online to contact the ASR service (oh, did I mention that the WiFi and LTE/5G modules also gobble up power like noones business?).
So it's not just the headset, I also need an input device, or rather 2.
I did though and I feel like I can't be the only one who finds it really frustrating to the point of making me furious.
1. I started with my eyes at floor level.
2. It moans about a guardian, this by far is the most soul sapping thing of all time. The thing is, I have dev mode, but I do find guardian useful (I punched some walls previously). It's just so annoying though.
3. It asks me to set up guardian every fucking time.
4. Followed by when I try the Oculus Link... do I want to trust this computer.
5. I start steam VR but it doesn't work as it cannot find my headset but at this point, I am strapped in and 2 meters from my desk (ala stationary guardian) so I take it off to restart steam VR and the Oculus app.
6. Sometimes the Oculus app simply doesn't work and I have to reinstall it.
7. For some reason my Oculus link cable is loose unlike other USB-C cables/ports so it disconnects from the movement of my standing desk intermittently enough to not be a problem but also highly annoying.
8. Sometimes things don't start in VR but in Flat mode, this means removing the headset to sort it out (see point 5). I feel like jumping in and out of the experience makes it almost unusable.
On the news the other day there was a guy from Microsoft and Facebook talking about how like "WOAH AVATARS ARE THE FUTURE". Like it is something new. I actually stopped playing Consoles (PS3/360?) because of all the Avatar setup shit with profiles. It's just that but in a fake office or room looking at bad 3d avatars and somehow this changes everything....
There is a long way to go. The best thing I have ever seen on my Oculus was when my girlfriend sent me a porn film for a laugh and it was actually pretty good as far as experiences go.
In saying all of this though. Beat Sabre and Super Hot are genuinely good experiences but they are as old as time itself so I feel that very very few things work well in VR. They are either completely shit (Skyrim VR etc), or very good with no in between.
Your complaints # 1-3 are a software issue that, while mildly annoying, will ultimately be resolved in an update. Creating a new guardian is literally a 15 second process.
Numbers 4-8 are because you choose to use a wireless headset from Oculus as a wired headset through Steam. Of course that's your choice, but the optimized workflow - that the vast majority of buyers use and is the primary product design - is to use on-headset apps without a PC or cable entirely.
It's also highly unfair to say "very very few things work well in VR" based on your experience. The vast majority of consumers don't care about Facebook IDs, or PCVR, or Steam libraries, or future compatibility concerns, or the other reasons you probably choose the setup you do.
If you want to judge the current state of VR for the mass market, go to the on-headset Quest store and try Walking Dead, Resident Evil 4, Walkabout Mini Golf, Contractors, Eleven Table Tennis, I Expect You to Die, Thrill of the Fight, In Death: Unchained, Fisherman's Tale, RealVR Fishing, Golf+, Moss, Tetris Effect, Pistol Whip, Red Matter, Shadow Point, or any of the other highly rated games that work out of the box.
Forgive me that it is "finicky" in my "specific setup".
Paying 80 pound for a wire so I can play titles such as Alyx while being wired seems reasonable to me. I mean, they literally sell you a wire for 1/3 the cost of the headset as a product so there is a market for it and they should provide me with a "Don't ask again" checkbox given that it's the same system but they don't?
Very few things conceptually work well in VR. Sorry. Lets see how you play FIFA for example or literally anything that doesn't involve just arm and head movements that is worth the effort.
I am very aware of the VR market and out of everything you said, the only thing I will accept is "I Expect you to Die" and it's sequel but the rest of those are tired at best bringing nothing new.
Sorry friend, I doubt I will be ringing bells any time soon for the "METAVERSE" based on what I have seen whilst keeping in mind that I am aware that I can play what are essentially bad unity games on my headset without PCVR.
They are games. What's more, most of them are rather simple games, and their only novelty is the IO device they were designed for.
This is a far far far cry from the supposed applications promised by the "metaverse" clamor as a place to do serious work and basically spend a substantial portion of our lives in.
Is it cool that I can put on a headset and hunt some robots in VR, aiming with my hands and dodging stuff by moving around? Absolutely! Is it cool that this is possible wo. being connected to a computer because the headset itself is so powerful? Undeniably!
Is it cool that these devices are becoming actually affordable for the masses, and easy&intuitive to use on top if that? Hell yeah!
But the technological & societal revolution that "metaverse" is presented as? Not by a long shot.
Definitely agree for the vanilla game. Patching it up with a few mods (functioning hands that collide with the environment, ability to smash containers, attacks impacting enemies, HL:A-like gravity gloves, changing weapons/spells without navigating menus) makes it far more playable, though that shouldn't be required for a full-price game.
It's disappointing with how much more could have been done, but still nice to have a full open-world RPG for VR, and prior to most notable VR titles like Beatsaber/Boneworks/HL:A/etc.
"The internet has been described as people and screens. I've been arguing that the metaverse is just more people and more screens. Trillions of dollars of investment have made 2D screens very effective tools for delivering information. If the metaverse can deliver that information anywhere, at scale, shared with geographically disparate people in the same virtual location, then it will have real value."
I've thought about this and come to agree. Ignore the Snow Crash/Ready Player One "everyone lives in VR" hype, and for now ignore the "all games are interconnected in a shared world" fantasy and just think people and screens.
Already in VR, you can create multiple 2D screens for working in any number or configuration. You can place that in any kind of environment you find comfortable working in. You can create a "window" into the real world to see your real keyboard and mouse. You can see avatars of people in the same room that really feel like they're next to you. All of this is a bit clunky and the resolution is lower than hoped, but it works.
Now scale this up, advance technology, and add time. Higher resolution and lighter headsets are inevitable.
Will people want to work in VR? If it means 4 screens on the balcony of a Tuscan villa instead of a tiny desk in a depressing space? Maybe. They can still type "git push" on a 2d screen with a real keyboard in a virtual space.
Will companies buy a $300 device for every employee? If that replaces the $300 monitors they already buy, it could actually save money.
Will execs wear a 400g headset for 3h? What about if it's a 100g headset and lets them feel present with a globally distributed team that can sit around the same virtual conference table with spatial audio and see body language and facial expressions[1]? Maybe.
The benefits for shared movies, group gatherings, co-working, and social gaming are very compelling. If you stop projecting your preconceived ideas of what a "metaverse" is, and instead ask "what are the opportunities afforded by immersive shared and networked spaces being available to the masses through pervasive cheap technology?", you can come up with pretty compelling use cases that, taken together, ultimately form a far more likely "metaverse" in the near-term (<5 years).
[1] Search for "Codec Avatars" to see progress here. Here's an article with some videos: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/28/22751177/facebook-meta-c...
There's a lot more to physical environments than high resolution graphics. You've got more senses than just sight. Your body is still experiencing the depressing desk even if your eyes are trying to convince you that you're at a Tuscan villa. That seems more depressing.
You're essentially just describing a high resolution 3D desktop wallpaper.
That's exactly what I did with my 4 high resolution monitors. And my current setup even lets me go to the kitchen to make a really tasty espresso or a snack without having to disentangle myself from a headset first. And I can even continue to listen to the music from my speakers while sipping aforementioned coffee.
>If it means 4 screens on the balcony of a Tuscan villa instead of a tiny desk in a depressing space? Maybe.
But they still feel the tiny desk in front of them, and still see it through the mentioned "keyboard window", still hear the janitor vacuuming his merry way down the hallway.
So essentially, this would be a desktop background, which costs 400$ and requires recharging a headset every 2h.
> What about if it's a 100g headset
Then they better start making meetings REALLY short, unless they want the battery go flat halfway through the second slide.
> The benefits for shared movies, group gatherings, co-working, and social gaming are very compelling.
Shared movies: big screen + streaming + comfy couch
Group Gatherings: until such time as VirtualReality figures out how to get me an ActualReality beverage, I pass.
Co-Working: Teams/Zoom/etc.
Social Gaming: Already possible, metaverse not required.