5 ms·

Because someone needs to pour the money in to get us to "Ready Player One" level game immersion.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
But is there much of a demand for it? VR has been a feature of video games for over a decade now, last time I used it I thought it was good enough (that was 6-7 years ago), technology wise. But it's nowhere near as popular as e.g. regular displays. 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.
- lm28469 1y ago
  The people who wish for these worlds are either complete shut in, terminally online or already spending 8+ hours a day playing video games and walking past their lives.
  - andybak 1y ago
    No. We're fairly normal actually.
    - lm28469 1y ago
      The numbers don't lie though, statistically nobody wants VR, we haven't even reached the numbers they were predicating for 2016, 10 years later ... > It says 96 million VR headsets will be shipped in 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2016/02/17/wearable-tech-market-to-be-worth-34-billion-by-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-headsets-shipped-last-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 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.
      - andybak 1y ago
        I don't care how many people want it. I personally never claimed it was going to be a huge mass market thing. It's big enough to be sustainable. 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.
      - theshackleford 1y ago
        > I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys On the other hand, I do. Isnt it crazy that like, different people have different experiences? Who would have thought!
  - gmueckl 1y ago
    They are also e.g. architects and designers who get amazing new tools to check their work and present it to clients. What is more honest than getting to walk through e.g. a life size mockup of a building? Now you can do that before the ground is even broken.
    - lm28469 1y ago
      These tools already exist and have nothing to do with the metaverse. This is such a weird argument, as if we needed meta to spend 10-50b a year in their bs to have these tools...
      - andybak 1y ago
        Tools exist to view architectural spaces in the same way a headset can without a headset? I'm slightly confused. 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"
- reassess_blind 1y ago
  I don't think it needs to be perfect for there to be massive demand, but it does need to get a lot better than it currently is. 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.
- theshackleford 1y ago
  > last time I used it I thought it was good enough (that was 6-7 years ago), technology wise. 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.
lm28469 1y ago
Meta alone could have solved like 50% of famines/heavy malnutrition currently happening in the world if they used their metaverse budget to do something useful. And they'd still be so rich they wouldn't know what to do with the leftovers. 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.
- cloudflare728 1y ago
  You don't understand how money works. 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.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    Ah yes, they're just redistributing the money, the trickle down economy right ? They're basically a non profit humanitarian association at that point
    - cloudflare728 1y ago
      Profit or loss is out of the equation. 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.
  - throw-10-8 1y ago
    Still living in the 80's? 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.
  - stubish 1y ago

But is there much of a demand for it? VR has been a feature of video games for over a decade now, last time I used it I thought it was good enough (that was 6-7 years ago), technology wise. But it's nowhere near as popular as e.g. regular displays. 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.

lm28469 1y ago
The people who wish for these worlds are either complete shut in, terminally online or already spending 8+ hours a day playing video games and walking past their lives.
- andybak 1y ago
  No. We're fairly normal actually.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    The numbers don't lie though, statistically nobody wants VR, we haven't even reached the numbers they were predicating for 2016, 10 years later ... > It says 96 million VR headsets will be shipped in 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2016/02/17/wearable-tech-market-to-be-worth-34-billion-by-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-headsets-shipped-last-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 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.
    - andybak 1y ago
      I don't care how many people want it. I personally never claimed it was going to be a huge mass market thing. It's big enough to be sustainable. 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.
    - theshackleford 1y ago
      > I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys On the other hand, I do. Isnt it crazy that like, different people have different experiences? Who would have thought!
- gmueckl 1y ago
  They are also e.g. architects and designers who get amazing new tools to check their work and present it to clients. What is more honest than getting to walk through e.g. a life size mockup of a building? Now you can do that before the ground is even broken.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    These tools already exist and have nothing to do with the metaverse. This is such a weird argument, as if we needed meta to spend 10-50b a year in their bs to have these tools...
    - andybak 1y ago
      Tools exist to view architectural spaces in the same way a headset can without a headset? I'm slightly confused. 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"
reassess_blind 1y ago
I don't think it needs to be perfect for there to be massive demand, but it does need to get a lot better than it currently is. 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.
theshackleford 1y ago
> last time I used it I thought it was good enough (that was 6-7 years ago), technology wise. 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.

lm28469 1y ago

Meta alone could have solved like 50% of famines/heavy malnutrition currently happening in the world if they used their metaverse budget to do something useful. And they'd still be so rich they wouldn't know what to do with the leftovers. 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.

cloudflare728 1y ago
You don't understand how money works. 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.
- lm28469 1y ago
  Ah yes, they're just redistributing the money, the trickle down economy right ? They're basically a non profit humanitarian association at that point
  - cloudflare728 1y ago
    Profit or loss is out of the equation. 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.
- throw-10-8 1y ago
  Still living in the 80's? 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.
- stubish 1y ago