Meta Horizon Worlds on Meta Quest is being discontinued
communityforums.atmeta.com
communityforums.atmeta.com
10 billion a year supposedly for the past 5 years now.
Facebook's core competency is copying other successful products. Sometimes it works.
- All The President's Men
It would have been really interesting to see what Oculus could have become without getting bought. I do think they were a little neat idea, not at all ready for Facebook sized projects.
When I was 20, I preordered a pixel 2 after watching the launch presentation from my university library. One of the "bonuses" for doing so was Google's new headset you put your phone in for a VR experience, along with a new controller.
This "Daydream" only lasted a few years (in software support), but it was a pretty good physical implementation of the "strap your phone to your face for budget VR" concept. I used it more than I'd care to admit for watching movies on a virtual big screen. It'd always give me a big headache between the eyes after an hour and a half, but it was fun every now and again.
A day at the fair.
It even convinced me to buy an Oculus CV1 when those were being heavily discounted!
I never ended up using the CV1 as much as my Daydream, which is saying something. The appeal of VR just isn't that great to me. It's something I find myself wanting to do maybe once or twice a year. Now, never, since the CV1 only ever worked well with Windows, and I can't be bothered to keep a Windows install exclusively for VR (I've tried and failed multiple times with the Linux runtimes).
Not nearly enough drive to deal with base stations, wires, or controllers. And even with the newest headsets that do away with all those, not worth the cash or effort to put on, or the space the headset takes up. Not for "once a month" trips to the fair.
It's insane to me that Meta dumped so much cash into VR. Their fever dream of working in VR gives me a sense of dread and migraine just thinking about it...
"Put on your headset and go into an office meeting!"
It really boggles the mind.
The problem with VR in general is that only children, Gen Alpha, are into it as a demographic. Meta failed to take this into account to reposition Meta VR as either their NES or Roblox into their marketing. They were marketing something only children appreciated to adults who couldn’t see the potential. All adults see is a giant bucket that they don’t want to put on their face.
Don't they screen to hire people who already know that?
There was a time when big tech widely hired dor entry-level jobs.
Also, cramming for the design portion of an interview, and doing it for real, and interacting with the architects/design documents are 2 very different things
The product is the stock price.
Viewed through that lens, keeping the hype going at all costs makes sense.
That's what meta(verse) was suppose to build.
you could do this forever!
And the tens of billions spent on AI at Meta... As a result, we're all using "Meta Code CLI" and "ChatBook" and "Geminizuck" right?
Seriously: while we're all on Claude Code using the Anthropic models and many are happy with Gemini and ChatGPT for other stuff, where is Meta's AI offering? I love their Segment Anything Models (SAM) but what the heck has Meta to answer to Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and xAI?
Meta stock is priced as a growth stock - not on its current financial returns but on what the market believes it will do in the future. It has been priced like this from the start because it has been growing since the start.
As soon as it stops being able to convince the market it is still growing, then the stock price drops to what the business's current financials dictate, which will be a huge drop. That huge drop has severe negative consequences for everyone involved in that decision. Spending tens of billions on the Metaverse project was better, even though it failed, because it created a growth story they could sell to the market.
So now that's gone they need another growth story. Given the current state of the tech world, that's probably AI-related. And they probably need their own models as part of it.
They can't just "survive the shift" because it's not really about survival. They need to be part of the shift, so that they can convince the market that they're still growing.
you realize 99% of those announced "investments" have yet to occur as recognizable transactions, correct?
Meanwhile, the barrel of $70b in metaverse waste was actually spent
"A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money."
They had the foundation of something half reasonable at one point, but their product management clearly got in the way.
I'm pretty sure the buck stops with Mark Zuckerberg.
If he wanted an imaginative environment he'd be in VRChat.
Neither of those extremes are tolerable.
Meta does not feel like a different brand from Facebook, given it is its umbrella. As brands they both speak "surveillance", "advertising", "scams", "AI slop", "manipulating your experience", "child harms" and "doom scroll regret".
They should rebrand the headsets back to Oculus, put them in a separate division, remove any dependencies. And never speak of Meta This or Facebook That or Zuckavatraphila again.
Remember how amazing the original NFTs were?
I thought the bunker is only a rumor, but DDGing it, it's "rumor" that's been covered in many news outlets, so, I'm guessing it's real although the news outlets might have some details wrong.
Did Zuckerberg invent Facebook.com or copy it from another person, during college?
I forget where history landed on that one.
And so I wonder if this corporate decision relates to that inventiveness of lack of.
That idea was brought to him by the Winklevoss brothers.
He then built it (allegedly, and having to pay $65m to settle a claim about, while lying to his partners) and scaled the company into what is now Facebook.
Billions. $70 billion since 2021 to be exact.
And it is so simple - just listen to your users and give them what they want - which seems to be VR cat girls.
I do believe that the recent Meta headsets pulled in a lot of users who will stay, thanks to their price point and performance.
They feel a bit directionless to me. They are still making money but even their AI attempt feels half hearted. I think they are really trying but I’m not sure they can build the engineering muscle to move in new areas with the brand damage they’ve sustained.
It was clearly the wrong bet. He pumped something like $100B into the endeavour (Meta Quest / VR / Horizons) and it is just slowly dying as we speak. He has to give up on it, although I am sure it will be called a "pivot" into AR glasses.
The problems are 2 fold:
People/kids don't want to put on a VR headset to play Roblox. I guess they're conceding this point by pivoting to mobile.
Meta is the opposite of cool. Real name requirements, only humanoid avatars, super corpo branding, etc really seriously hold them back from competing with VRChat or Roblox. This one is terminal it'll never be fixable as long as Meta is at the helm.
I can see Meta wanting the engagement though.
Even now it's still less.
Literally never met anyone who used or liked the Horizon thing, VRChat in comparison is more popular and doesn't feel like a soulless corporate husk: they also have quite the variety of worlds, from party games, to someone building a whole jet/chopper flight combat simcade world; ofc all of them are a bit jank, but lots of cool stuff and very expressive avatars.
Meta Quest, on the other hand, seems like a really good piece of tech - I still have my Quest 2 (because I'm broke as hell), but I enjoyed even that one, albeit maybe with a slightly more comfy head strap than the default one and the Virtual Desktop app cause their Link app doesn't support Intel Arc GPUs. The tracking is good, the experience of all sorts of stuff in VR is nice, games like H3VR or VTOL VR are great, as is Into The Radius VR! At the same time, I can see why it never saw super widespread adoption - tricky to develop for and also a somewhat limited audience.
Also the productivity situation just isn't there, closest I got to a good productivity setup (out of curiosity) was the Immersed app before they messed it all up by removing support for physical monitors - I could have my 4 physical monitors in VR surrounded by whatever I want and some virtual monitors and just lock in, it was kind of zen despite the technical limitations. It seems like people got promising tech in place... and then never really wrote good software to take advantage of it. Even Virtual Desktop has artificially enforced monitor limits in VR.
I hope VR tech continues to progress (especially lightweight headsets) no matter what happens to Meta.
I don't think Meta has nearly that need. It's "other companies" are Instagram and Whatsapp, which are basically in the exact same space as Facebook.
I think it was a desperate lunge away from that toxic brand toward ANYTHING else. Zuckerberg put his money on VR, given the pandemic and the mild success of Oculus.
Betting big on the metaverse in particular was a mistake, but it might have helped keep the Facebook stink off of products like WhatsApp and Instagram, which remain pretty popular among mainstream audiences.
So to take the Meta example, they need something that is going to have revenue upside similar to Meta advertising revenue (one of the most profitable things in the universe), and that has better margins that the advertising business (basically impossible).So the only logical thing to do is to make grotesquely large bets on things that are extremely speculative. You can't bet on things that are well known - because nothing known has the properties from earlier that you're looking for, and you can't bet small because you've got to convince people you're the pay off is of a similar size to your existing business.
In Intel's case they lost focus on the core business and so that died and their other bets didn't matter because the core business was dead. With Meta the core business in't dead, but it's only a matter of time before it's seriously threatened and so they're going to attack that threat with everything they've got - and they have a tonne of resources.
I have seen basically no evidence of this. Google knows how to do research to create technology. Google is pretty terrible at creating product though.
To the point it was a running joke at MSR.
Meta spends a lot of money on AI research with little to show for it. As imperfect as Google may be, they're still doing much better.
Both GCP and Gemini are products of this. Modern cloud was arguably built by Google (think Chubby, GFS, Bigtable as building blocks) - they just spent 10 years ceding it to Amazon before competing.
They build a wildly successful cloud platform, they’re expanding their subscription services, they’ve got enterprise offerings, etc
The trick is that Google accepted that none of their other business would likely have the margins and volume that search has, but they did it anyways.
As in, in 2012. They outright replaced people's email addresses in their profile (makes it harder to reach people outside the walled garden, makes it harder to transfer your credentials to a competing service) and I've heard Google+ links got blocked
Zuckerberg is many things, not everything he's accused of (Trump/Cambridge Analytica) might be entirely accurate but he is at least partly a bit of a scumbag
Though I'm sure many are mercenaries and will work for whoever pays the most.
The next 5 years are going to be very disappointing for you.
That's the irony. The genius scientists are against AI used for defense, but somehow they're all-in for AI being used to getting people addicted to ads, dopamine, gambling, debt, porn, political manipulation, etc. basically everything that's guarantee to wreck society, but thank god they aren't making weapons I guess.
And meta's UI has changed every 6 months anyway. Like significantly so. They were up for another redesign anyway :)
There's certainly marketshare they could work with in USA and Europe. $70 billion is 70 million phones.
Meta, to the detriment of the market, tried too early in the VR lifecycle to own the market. They basically tried to become the iPhone and Apple in the year 1990.
Tell me, do you believe any singular company in the year 1990, with 100B to burn, would be able to create the iPhone, in any of its varations? Absolutely not, there too much research, too much to invent, too much to program and not nearly enough talent and money for one company to manage.
This is just my 2c as an outside observer, software engineer ofc. I'm sure some MBA could make a case for said synergy. But it made sense to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp, for instance, because they'd face similar tech challenges and could benefit from each others' growth playbooks. But Oculus?!?!?! IMO Facebook had a better chance opening a cloud computing division.
So, achieving the Metaverse dream with the money Zuck has spent was always gonna be a tall order at this point but if anyone could've made it work, it wasn't gonna be a social media company.
Another point of view: antitrust. What Zuck did with Whatsapp at a minimum ought to be highly illegal. He's a black hat hacker from his history and WA is more of the same. Brian Acton said "it's time, delete Facebook". That's not mutual benefit, that's conquering
Nongamers? And you are going to somehow get nongamers to shell out for the required hardware for this casual half interest pursuit of theirs? Doesn't work.
I feel like zuck has been billionaire for too long to probably understand this.
On the gaming side though, other companies succeeded in making profitable games. Meta seems to have just spent and spent, without getting a game people wanted to play.
The problem is, like someone else mentioned, the company itself. Facebook is a middleman company. other people make stuff, showcase it on one of their properties (insta, marketplace, whatever), and then go back to the people actually doing stuff.
If your (well paid) job is to write and communicate clearly, and for a major announcement you come up with this...not much left to say.
Context: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/14/meta-reportedly-considerin...
They had lightning in a bottle and somehow lost it. Honestly it might have been hiring Carmack that sent them down this path. Moving away from PCVR expanded the market, but it also killed the magic. Now the quest store is a wasteland of what look like low budget mobile apps.
For the sake of the world's sanity, I'd rather see them go belly up.
It's good to see companies actually try things instead of sit there and not innovate.
I believe 30% of the population cannot use VR in any way shape or form because your inner ear has decided the floor is the only place you can be.
I think that ~30% of the population just has more sensitivity to the mismatch.
It’s probably most like getting car sick. You are obviously moving, but you are also stationary at the same time. This doesn’t happen to folks suffering from motion sickness when they are driving, though, because there is now a physical action tying the motion to your inputs.
This may lead you to ask why people watching a movie in a theater don’t get motion sick and the reason is the same, multiple inputs tell you otherwise. You can see the edges of the screen, you can see the audience, there’s a lot of input telling your body there’s nothing weird going on here. The more immersive, the more some people’s bodies do not handle the illusion well.
https://www.computer.org/csdl/journal/tg/2025/05/10916971/24...
My kids and I use our two headsets a lot. Sure, it's not a daily driver for workflows, but the uniqueness of many of the game experiences just can't be replicated on desktops/consoles.
It's a damn shame because Facebook bought up Oculus, poured gasoline on a fire by pumping $100B dollars in and now seems set to walk away because it didn't make a $100B + 1 dollars.
In its current state, it was never going to be a replacement for PCs or phone experiences. It's just a different lane all together. But Beat Saber, or Walkabout mini golf, or the I Expect You to Die series are insanely fun and unique. I'll be sad if they fold the quest down entirely, but I hope that Valve or others take up the banner. VR doesn't have to be a $100B industry to be viable, especially in its infancy.
Meanwhile, Apple tosses a $3,500 headset onto the market and then is surprised that it's treated as a novelty. Why is it so hard for these companies to get their strategies right? Maybe it's because it's not a product suited (today, at least) for two of the largest companies on earth to focus on. These are moonshot companies who make products that half of the globe uses on a daily basis.
I just want a solid VR platform with a healthy pipeline or quirky, interesting games.
I believe there is no expectation of a Meta Quest 4 right?
25 PPD VR headset for 499 with inside-out tracking plus controllers etc is amazing value. I've never once used any of the Meta applications, I only use it for VR games on Steam.
I think there is a case to be made one should buy one while you still can, if you want a great value PC VR headset. It's still an excellent choice for stuff like sim racing as well.
I also think the Quest line of hardware is done for. They are clearly much more interested in the glasses lineup, products like the Ray Bans etc, none of which appear to use any of the Quest software stack.
[0]"Almost" has plenty of room for any horrid exception someone might want to gotcha me with, so please don't.
I was hoping to buy one (I've got 4 quests of different types) but nope not if it's > 1000€.
So once again they're making a stupid business decision based on wishful thinking.
Exec 1: "Surely, people will want to wear this headset all day while they work! Because the only reason why anyone would NOT want to do that is the weight of the thing!"
Exec 2: "Exactly! Gaming makes us a lot of money—and it's the only reason anyone ever bought our VR headsets—but imagine how much more money we could be making from business customers/apps that currently have no need for such devices. If we build it, they will come though! Can there be any doubt?"
Exec 3: "Not to mention that the data we collect from gamers has almost no value! We need to be collecting intimate details about everyone's lives, not their best Beat Saber scores!"
Exec 4: "You know what? Let's get rid of the controllers entirely. Sure, they're absolutely 100% necessary for decent gaming but I seriously doubt the business applications of AR that we're pretending is a $100 billion market won't need it."
Exec 5: "I'm concerned that end users will be able to do what they want with OUR devices that we're so graciously selling them the privilege to use. We need to ensure they're NOT at all like generic PCs that allow anyone and everyone to run whatever software they want and attach 3rd party hardware. It's not like such capabilities of general purpose hardware were what set off the PC revolution or anything!"
Probably more accurate? :
"Earlier this year, we admitted we have no idea what to do with VR or Horizon. We’re splitting them up because they’re both failing in different ways, and we’re turning Horizon Worlds into just another shitty mobile app. This mess is going to break everything, including the app on your phone. To "streamline" things—which is code for cutting costs—here is everything we’re taking away from you through 2026.
• Meta Horizon Worlds:
By March 31, 2026, we’re pulling Horizon Worlds and Events from the Quest Store. We’re also killing off Horizon Central, Events Arena, Kaiju, and Bobber Bay in VR. You can play your other favorite VR worlds until June 15, 2026, but after that, we’re deleting the app from Quest entirely. If you still want to use it, you’ll have to stare at a tiny phone screen like everyone else.
• Meta Horizon Hyperscape Capture (Beta):
By March 24, 2026, you can’t watch Hyperscape captures in Horizon Worlds anymore. They’re stuck in some beta app in your library that nobody uses. You can still record stuff, but you’ll be doing it alone because we’re killing the social features.
• Meta Horizon Plus (MH+) Perks:
By March 31, 2026, we’re stripping the Horizon-specific crap—like Meta Credits and digital clothes—out of your subscription. We’re charging you the same price for less stuff, but hey, you still get the monthly games.
We’re still spending money trying to make the Quest suck less—we added a keyboard and let you move windows around, and we’re forcing a new interface on you whether you want it or not."
I don't understand what Horizon Worlds is or the other thing mentioned.
> By March 31, 2026, Horizon Worlds and Events will no longer appear in the Store on Quest. Also, Horizon Central, Events Arena, Kaiju, and Bobber Bay worlds will no longer be available in VR. You can still jump into your other favorite worlds in VR until June 15, 2026, after which the Horizon Worlds app will be removed from Quest, and Worlds will no longer be available in VR.
The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Very few people want to buy a separate cumbersome face hugger device.
Though Facebook had impossible goals, they didn't want to make a gaming device, they wanted to make the next smartphone, that everyday people and office workers would use. Which was just unrealistic.
It was a losing play that didn’t know what market it was actually entering.
Edit: fixed typo
Also, your statement is far too reductive! There's plenty of avatars with scales! Also, don't forget the anime girls that are actually middle-aged men and the occasional sentient burrito.
If you can be anything, it makes sense it attracts people who want to not be what they already are.
At least they had a purpose, a vision.
Now Zuckerberg is going to be all sour about it and even more cynical about everything.
They’re going to go back to what they know how to do: optimize for attention and sell personal data.
What I do use VR for is Bigscreen VR nearly every night to watch stuff with my friends. Scrolling through reels in a movie theater is pretty fun and even though I never do it solo on my phone, I will sit there for like 3-4 hours in VR enjoying communal brain rot.
Perhaps they should focus on things like that instead of gimmicks that nobody cares about. For example, I have never once played a game in VR that didn't force me to sit or stand in a specific position, meaning to play it, I have to go out of my way to do so.
Also it isn't this weird an idea. Could you imagine explaining to someone in 1995 that everyone would be chatting on a small touchscreen instead of calling each other on the phone? You'd be laughed out of the door "typing is not real communication".
Yet these days it's the main mode of communication. I do think AR/VR has a chance. Just not until the hardware is truly hassle-free.
The problem is that the intersection/suitability of VR and social media is rather low, while as a counterexample the intersection of mobile and social media is very large. I have no desire to chat with old classmates when I "suit up" with VR goggles, I'm there to game.
What a shame. Hopefully capitalism and AI research does not produce equally bad products and ideas.
Maybe it'll be a case study in business schools for a while, but I think that'll be the extent of its legacy
Merck - $17.9B
Johnson & Johnson - $17.2B
Roche - $14.6B
AstraZeneca - $13.6B
AbbVie - $12.8B
Bristol Myers Squibb - $11.2B
Eli Lilly - $10.99B
Meta’s losses on Metaverse last year - $19.2B
So, simply redirecting their spending in that division would instantly propel Meta to be the biggest medical researcher in the world. And as a bonus they’d get a real return out of it.
I'm not saying it wasn't wasted spend, but velocity of money is a thing and maybe it's better off in the hands of the people who it was spent on instead of sitting in Zuck's war chest.
3D film was big in the 1950's, but fell out of fashion as colour film processes became cheaper and more ubiquitous. The 3D technology of the day couldn't handle colour film, and colour was a bigger leap forward in immersion than 3D. The 3D surge that happened a couple decades ago was in full-colour, but still subsided. Home video was on the rise, and the expense of 3D in the home was probably to blame, as well as half-baked solutions. I owned a 3D capable projector for a while, but it had to be run at a reduced refresh rate and took a big brightness hit in 3D mode. I watched 3D movies only a couple of times, and stuck to good old 2D after that. I no longer own a 3D capable display.
There was a big content problem with 3D movies. Some movies attempted to WOW you with 3D gimmicks. Scott Cameron's "Ghosts of the Abyss" was guilty of this. It was a mostly 2D documentary that occasionally rammed a robot arm in your face or had a collage of images popping out of the wall for no particular reason. The result was that you were more frequently distracted from the experience by 3D gimmicks than further immersed in it. Other films took the approach of making both 2D and 3D versions available, but this made 3D non-essential to the experience. 3D just didn't add much. I often found myself preferring the 2D version because so many cinemas have brightness problems with 3D projection.
VR was big in the 90's, mainly in VR Cafes. The technology was cool as hell in concept, but the reality was underwhelming. Computers of the day just weren't fast enough, and the results were literally nauseating. VR fell out of fashion, the cafes went out of business, and that was mostly it for VR until a few years ago. The current surge has much better hardware and far more compelling experiences. Valve's Alyx is just plain brilliant! Unfortunately, it's still nauseating for some and a truly civilized VR experience seems just beyond the capabilities of all but the most ridiculously expensive hardware at present. As a result, adoption is poor and the current wave of VR is petering out, like 3D did a decade or so ago. There aren't many VR headsets out there, so there isn't a lot of compelling software, so there isn't a lot of reason for more people to buy expensive headsets, and so on.
For my money, the problem is that VR and 3D aren't as big a leap forward as they need to be in order to justify by their current expense and downsides. People can use their imagination to immerse themselves through a 2D window really effectively. VR probably isn't going to catch on until it's cheap and trouble-free. Eventually, it'll be better/cheaper at delivering a big 2D window than a physical 2D screen can, but it's probably not going to succeed until then.
They were never able to define this vacuous concept or any value proposition.
When I was at Google, I had many of these discussions about cost tradeoffs for products that were https://killedbygoogle.com/