And i happy for that. Someone has to bite the bullet to push the VR tech.
Any movie depictions of VR are fully immersive - Ready Player One (at least the film) takes some liberties in depicting the game world as if it's immersive, even though the guy plays with VR glasses and force feedback gloves/suits, all current-day technology. Most others have a direct brain interface. Some (Star Trek) model a realistic immersive environment around the player, but both of those are very much science fiction still.
There's some brain / tech interfaces, but if I recall correctly the brain has to learn to handle the signals first, there's no way to create a perfect, instant link.
> It says 96 million VR headsets will be shipped in 2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2016/02/17/wearable-...
Turns out they sold half as much.... in 5 years: https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-over-51-million-vr-he...
> the VR/AR market will reach $182 billion in revenue, including hardware and software/content, by 2025 and bypass television.
https://www.startbeyond.co/media/idcvrrevenuereport
Meanwhile: "The global virtual reality (VR) market size was valued at $16.32 billion in 2024"
I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys, the only people I know of who are semi interested already spend 6+ hours a day gaming.
Stupid claims by people trying to pump investment hype have no bearing on my interest in the medium.
> I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys, the only people I know of who are semi interested already spend 6+ hours a day gaming.
The people I know with an interest in VR are mainly artists and other forms of creatives. We must move in different circles.
On the other hand, I do. Isnt it crazy that like, different people have different experiences? Who would have thought!
Or maybe you think a headset doesn't add anything to the experience of viewing a space. If so, I'd have to ask whether you'd actually used one. Because if there's any inarguably uniquely appropriate use case for VR, it's "viewing architectural spaces"
Games where you are stationary (racing simulation, mainly) are better suited to it. Gran Turismo 7 in PSVR2 with a Logitech racing wheel was a ridiculously immersive experience. I played through the whole game in VR and it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had and certainly the most immersive, particularly as a diehard car guy. But racing sims are fairly niche.
Outside of racing sims, it's still immersive, but any games with character movement give me immediate motion sickness, the movement is too clunky and disorienting.
If they can figure that out at a reasonable price point the demand will be there because the immersion is just night and day against a screen.
Many of us didnt. I wouldnt call low resolution and low PPI (significantly lower than desktop displays) "good enough." Not to mention terrible optics. I would use my current device a lot more if it could match the "viewable" resolution of my desktop displays, but currently, it can not.
No one "needs" to push for that bullshit metaverse, the real world isn't shitty enough, yet, apparently they're dead set and achieving that, for people to wish to live in a computer.
They are not burning money, they are employing people like you directly or through 3rd party partner companies. The beneficiaries can decide themselves how to spend money. They can live a good life or help others.
Somehow Facebook getting a huge amount of money. They are distributing that money to a million people (directly or indirectly to employees, share holders, employees of 3rd party partners). Some people are getting billions and some are getting $100s.
Instead of handful of people in Facebook management deciding to be humanitarian, you now have a million people deciding what to do with their portion. It is that simple.
Seems like you are the one with an outdated model of how money works.
Over the last couple decades it has been moving up at an ever increasing rate instead of down.
It’s a lot of money, but the WFP has spent more than that in the past 10 years on the problem.
A lot of the issues with world hunger aren’t easy solved by throwing more money at it. Politics, logistics, corruption etc. It can’t be solved without money either, of course.
Not to say that money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere than the metaverse.
HN crowd often criticizes big tech for milking ads and the lack of innovation. Meta deserves credit for sinking their own money into future techs like VR.
By the way, Exxon the oil company funded early research of lithium ion battery tech by Dr. Whittingham, clearly not for short term benefits.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_lithium-ion_bat...
Rechargable batteries have been around since the 1850s. The idea of "battery, but smaller" isn't exactly a hard sell when you already have devices with huge NiMH / NiCd battery bricks attached to them. Just look at the laptops and mobile phones from the 90s!
On the other hand, VR is almost entirely a solution looking for a problem. VR headsets have been around since the 80s. Sure they sucked, but the fact that there still isn't a killer app forty years later should be a good indication that the concept itself perhaps isn't too attractive.
VR development is driven solely by Facebook's desire to sell VR, not by customer demand for better VR headsets. If the current headsets aren't good enough, a 50% lighter / faster one isn't going to make a difference.