4 ms·

Good question. I don’t have a poll but three observations. 1) People’s tastes vary. But millions of units have sold so people are open to it. 2) My non-techy

by gregw2 4y ago

Good question. I don’t have a poll but three observations. 1) People’s tastes vary. But millions of units have sold so people are open to it. 2) My non-techy 60+ year old aunt tried my Quest and kept raving about it and bought one. 3) It has potential to be more immersive. Having messed around with Quest, there are demos of things that are step functions of experience beyond what you get with a TV experience: the eye opener for me was front row seat in a small venue with your favorite band, up close and personal. When the video+3d resolution get better, it will get way more compelling. Entertainment is all about feelings. An immersive experience provides even more ability for evoking them. People do seem to value more-immersive where possible if you look at the history of TV+movies… if the distractions can be eliminated. But if the packaging tells you not to let people under 13 years to use it (because their eyesight is still developing?) (and I love the honesty), it’s fair to say the tech isn’t fully there and you aren’t going to capture the next generation of kids with spare time on their hands, among many other factors. There is also not a lot of free compelling content on Quest unlike the internet; rather they are very geared towards selling you $20 apps in their store. I respect the need to monetize but there is also a fair bit of learning still needed on marketing and business model side for both the platform and apps to drive me to keep opening the wallet. I felt like I explored most of the free content and apps in under 10 hours. Value for money just wasn’t there for me. I did feel like the tech was “good enough” that this tech would get there eventually. That is a key threshold to cross and imho has been crossed. But I am also reminded of my old (pre-iPhone-eta) WindowsCE mobile phone with stylus and web browser in my pocket. There was value there… but it was also greatly mitigated by being cumbersome in various ways.

gspencley 4y ago
> 1) People’s tastes vary. But millions of units have sold so people are open to it. Is this an indication that people want the Metaverse, specifically, or are open to VR in general? I am not much of a gamer, and probably the last person who would ever be interested in a VR headset. But I can see the appeal of VR games. I can't, for the life of me, see the appeal of "the Metaverse."
- jjulius 4y ago
  This is also a great question. Beyond that, of the millions of units sold, I'd be curious to know how many of those are upgrades from the same early adopters vs first-time buyers. Also, what has the trajectory of new user adoption looked like?
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  I see "the metaverse" as the liminal space between actual VR apps (games, business, whatever). If you're between rounds of a VR game you don't want to remove the helmet while waiting and chatting so you'll hang out in a VR-enabled lobby where you see each other in your in-game outfits. Eventually enough games will have VR lobbies that you'll hang out with people in other games' outfits as you all wait for your game to start. Ditto business. If you're in VR because you're reviewing architectural renderings or whatever, you'll probably keep the helmet on for a few minutes between meetings and as such, seeing your coworkers come out of other virtual meeting rooms and hang around at a virtual water cooler gives you a bit of that hallway conversation that you're now missing, and provides a continuity of experience. None of this is where the money is though, at least not now. You're still playing a game, or using business software, and that's what you pay for - not the lobby. That's why, I think, Meta and stuff seems so silly. They seem to expect that you're going to want to use it for its own sake, as opposed to it being equivalent to the Facebook UI - something you use to get the real value, not the value itself.
pirate787 4y ago
There's no eyesight risk for children; the 13 year old restriction is for compliance with childrens' online privacy and marketing legal restrictions.

by gregw2 4y ago

gspencley 4y ago

> 1) People’s tastes vary. But millions of units have sold so people are open to it. Is this an indication that people want the Metaverse, specifically, or are open to VR in general? I am not much of a gamer, and probably the last person who would ever be interested in a VR headset. But I can see the appeal of VR games. I can't, for the life of me, see the appeal of "the Metaverse."

jjulius 4y ago
This is also a great question. Beyond that, of the millions of units sold, I'd be curious to know how many of those are upgrades from the same early adopters vs first-time buyers. Also, what has the trajectory of new user adoption looked like?
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
I see "the metaverse" as the liminal space between actual VR apps (games, business, whatever). If you're between rounds of a VR game you don't want to remove the helmet while waiting and chatting so you'll hang out in a VR-enabled lobby where you see each other in your in-game outfits. Eventually enough games will have VR lobbies that you'll hang out with people in other games' outfits as you all wait for your game to start. Ditto business. If you're in VR because you're reviewing architectural renderings or whatever, you'll probably keep the helmet on for a few minutes between meetings and as such, seeing your coworkers come out of other virtual meeting rooms and hang around at a virtual water cooler gives you a bit of that hallway conversation that you're now missing, and provides a continuity of experience. None of this is where the money is though, at least not now. You're still playing a game, or using business software, and that's what you pay for - not the lobby. That's why, I think, Meta and stuff seems so silly. They seem to expect that you're going to want to use it for its own sake, as opposed to it being equivalent to the Facebook UI - something you use to get the real value, not the value itself.

pirate787 4y ago

There's no eyesight risk for children; the 13 year old restriction is for compliance with childrens' online privacy and marketing legal restrictions.