American Teens Aren't Excited About Virtual Reality (cnbc.com) 177
Virtual reality hasn't caught on with American teens, according to a new survey from Piper Sandler released on Tuesday. From a report: While 29% percent of teens polled owned a VR device -- versus 87% who own iPhones -- only 4% of headset owners used it daily, the investment firm found, and 14% used them weekly. In addition, teenagers didn't seem that interested in buying forthcoming VR headsets. Only 7% said they planned to purchase a headset, versus 52% of teens polled who were unsure or uninterested. The survey results suggest that virtual reality hardware and software has yet to catch on with the public despite billions of dollars in investment in the technology from Big Tech companies and a number of low-cost headsets on the market. Teenagers are often seen as early adopters of new technology and their preferences can provide a preview of where the industry is going.
Simple Reason (Score:3, Interesting)
VR headsets suck in terms of image quality. They need to be at 8K per eye or better. It matters. Mobile phones sucked and very very few were using it for internet until the iPhone came out in mid 2007. Note, for years prior to that I'd been saying that mobile phones needed to be bigger and have a proper touch UI (reference: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org] ) .. but idiots couldn't see that phones could be useful as mobile internet devices and kept saying that internet on phones was a dumb idea (and getting modded up for it). (Reference: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org] ) .. Fact is, if VR is done right, it will work.
Plenty of people used mobile phones for internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone was the 1st phone sold to Americans that wasn't chock full of bloatware APIs from carriers designed to lock developers into their $30k+ SDKs. That's what made it take off like crazy. Hilariously Steve Jobs had to be argued into opening up the SDKs to the outside world. Had he not done that (or course corrected if he did) the world would be a very different place.
Bringing it back to VR, a large percentage of the population gets motion sickness from the disconnect between their eyes and inner ear. And that's before we talk about guys like me who get headaches because VR doesn't actually fool our eyes. You can do 24k per line, solid gold baby, and it won't fix those problems.
Re:Plenty of people used mobile phones for interne (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPhone was the 1st phone sold to Americans that wasn't chock full of bloatware APIs from carriers designed to lock developers into their $30k+ SDKs. That's what made it take off like crazy.
Slashdot wasn't too kind to the iPhone when it was at this stage, either:
Consumers Unlikely To Pay $500 for iPhone [slashdot.org]
iPhone Faces Uncertain Market [slashdot.org]
What If Apple Made A Cell Phone And No One Cared? [slashdot.org]
Not that I can find any of my old posts from back then (individual user comment history seems to hit a brick wall around 2019 these days), but IIRC, my prediction was that the iPhone wasn't going to sell well because half of the USA's carriers used CDMA networks at the time. I was wrong, the iPhone ended up being such a compelling product that people switched to AT&T (or hacked the iPhone's carrier lock to enable limited compatibility with T-Mobile) just to have one.
History might be repeating itself with Slashdot's overall pessimistic attitude towards AR/VR, or maybe this time around this blind squirrel has finally found a nut. Check back in a few years and see who ends up being right, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
lol 8k per eye.
You've clearly not used the Varjo Aero, which is ~3k per eye and crystal clear
Re:Simple Reason (Score:5, Funny)
640k per eye ought to be enough for anybody.
Re: Simple Reason (Score:2)
Given that exceeds human visual acuity by a few orders of magnitude, yeah I'd say so.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find the image quality bad at all. The Quest 2 is a comfortable headset with enough pixels for gaming, at least for me. Maybe 8k would start to make it a viable work screen replacement?
Outside of the initial wow factor though there's still very little software that's compelling enough to set-up a play space. With the little non-work screen time I get I'll watch a movie with the wife (whose controllers are way more interactive). The kids would rather jump on a tablet/laptop and screw around in Roblox
Re:Simple Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not why. It's because kids aren't fucking banks you can just extract endless amount of green cheese from. People keep aiming at kids with stupid kiddie games, meanwhile adults are like "why do all these games suck?"
First you need the hardware. That's getting close to 8 or 9K for all the good stuff. /. ok maybe not the cheapest...but real contenders.)
Then you need games, and while there are SOME good ones, the overwhelming majority of the are the cheapest shit you've ever seen.(this is
Then comes my favourite part. NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO PLAY NICE WITH EACH OTHER! Everyone has different controllers which means every fucking game has to support all these wonky pieces of shit and most don't. All the good devs are enthralled to the console overlords and they are not aware of any other overlords in their vicinities. Cooperation isn't even in the dictionary anymore. It was removed after being discovered it was obsolete.
Image quality is a bit of a thing but not much. Index is already workable and there are already 12k ones coming i think. It's the size of the unit that's more an issue. You can barely wear those things for an hour before you just have to take it off to restore bloodflow to your face and surrounding areas. What you need is power. FPS in great numbers so you can actually hit those refresh rates.
Re: (Score:3)
First you need the hardware. That's getting close to 8 or 9K for all the good stuff.
Say what? A Quest 2 costs $350 which is mid range, a Valve Index with accessories is only $1k. Pair that with a high end $2k computer and you're only at $3k. That's high, but for people interested in high end gaming they probably already have a PC
Re: Simple Reason (Score:2)
You think someone with student loans, cad payments, and roommates for sharing rent can afford 3k on a gaming rig?
Re: (Score:2)
These are teens, they don't have those things yet, they're just mooching off their parents
Re: (Score:3)
And a lot of parents are going to shell out 3k per 2.2 kids for a flash in the pan beta tech no-real-games-available-anyway gaming goggle that has no other value or purpose which none of their friends have?
Your parents must have been much richer than mine.
I'm not in any way poor. My kid got the left over laptop my work from 3 jobs ago let me keep and the broken screen iPhone 7 her older cousin gifted her when cousin got a new iphone. After having that for several years (with no complaints, mind you) we go
Re: Simple Reason (Score:2)
No. Simpler reason, VR is dumb and a gimmick just like 3D TV
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't, if VR is just a gimmick, so is color tv or even HD/4k and certainly 8K TV's.
If you say VR is just a gimmick, you never experienced decent VR.
Re: (Score:2)
Name this "decent" VR system, it's price to me at retail right now, and name the specific applications that make it worth having over my other options.
Please educate me.
Re: (Score:2)
TBH I dont think it matters as much as people think it does. I had one of those Pimax 8ks and , other than their abysmal drivers, it worked fine, it was just a pain to use. I also have one of those Occulus Go ones, and while the image quality is distinctly lower, I hardly notice it , the convenience is far more useful to me.
That said, all the Meta nonsense is genuinely painful. No Occulus I genuinely DONT want to share my VR useage with Facebook. The whole point is to be taken OUT of the world, not dragged
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with image quality. Controlling a game character in VR sucks. You don't see people playing things like Call of Duty, Destiny, or any other "big name" games, with a Wii-mote level of shitty controller. Any first person shooter I've ever seen in VR has horrible, sloppy control....nobody wants that when they are trying to aim.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, nice drive down memory lane. "Nobody's going to want more than 640x480!"
Re: Simple Reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, you got four colors with that!
Re: (Score:2)
What VR / AR really needs is:
1. Full properly proportioned models. AKA. No disembodied hands / heads / etc. This is supposed to be Virtual Reality. Not some acid trip / fever dream being rendered by an N64.
2. Full hand controllers and individual finger / thumb mappi
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, if VR is done right, it will work.
The $$$ price of "doing it right" means it will never happen, both in terms of the hardware needed and the cost of producing the artwork.
(OK, "never" is a bit strong but we're still a long way away. A decade at least.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same decade away that cold fusion is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All these problems can be solved with the addition of a groin attachment.
People won't care about the low resolution, the unstable frame rate, the bulky headset, and the janky UI, so long as they are being jacked off while watching VR porn.
I can only assume that this is a really hard problem to solve, because there aren't any well reviewed units on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, bravo.
You have found the only real potential use for VR.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. People are trapped in their paradigms. When the iPhone was announced, a lot of people recoiled at the idea of a touch screen only phone. Why? Because most touch screens prior to 2007 were terrible. People remember poking at ATM screens with bad accuracy, or pressing hard with a stylus on cash register signature pads that were not sensitive.
People are resistant to the idea of VR because they remember either Google Cardboard or large heavy arcade headsets. They can't imagine light thin hardware like
Re: Simple Reason (Score:2)
You can say that all you want but the trillions of dollars in economic value created by the iPhone will disagree with you and win. Somebody a lot smarter than me said that people do not want freedom they want chicken wings. All you can eat pizza and large sodas the same is true of mobile devices people do not care if their device is open or not they care that they can watch TikTok and get on Facebook and tweet and play their little resource harvesting games that they are walked through like an infant. What
Re: (Score:2)
You may not need or like a mobile internet connected phone but obviously billions of others do.
It isn't just for surfing. Most phone screens are too small for that.
It is for gps, quick email check, texting through sms or corporate chat apps, some light gaming while bored, quick Facebook or other social media check.
In short, it is about staying connected to the rest of the world.
For example, this weekend I was in another city I'm not familiar with and we wanted food. The place we decided on didn't look as
Re:Maybe but ... (Score:5, Informative)
As the owner of a VR headset and someone who likes writing software, the main reason I haven't used the VR headset or written much software is because the whole process is so painful.
Because I need glasses to read now I have become an old fart, but don't need them when using a VR headset ( I dont think I could even if I needed to) I have to take my glasses off and then strap the headset on or vice versa continuously for each debug cycle. This gets old quickly - especially since the headset is so bulky and keeps insisting I reinitialise it's work area or whatever you call the play zone.
the resolution isn't really good enough either but the biggest problem is the bulk and inconvenience of putting it on and taking it off.
If it were a device I could just keep on and switch in and out of my dev environment, and it wasn't like having a brick tied to my face but more like just wearing sunglasses, I'd have spent much more time with it before leaving it aside to do something more interesting and less painful to develop software for.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any compelling reason for non-tech people to use VR except as an entertainment oddity.
Yep. No matter how good the goggles get you'll never change the fact that you're wearing a pair of fucking goggles.
It's a huge disconnect from reality, eg. You can't see your hands to type on the keyboard or anything like that. It's good for VR entertainment but the idea that we'll all go to a Metaverse for daily things like shopping or doing business is ludicrous.
Re: Maybe but ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and 4K TV's or even color TV's are also nothing more than just a ghee-wiz factor.
For games VR is far from a gimmick, it's a completely different experience of the boring flatscreen games. The immersion alone makes it not a gimmick, but an actual different way of gaming.
For designing it can also open up much more than a simple monitor can give you.
For realty development/selling you can explore a house/building/site without even actually being there, again, immersion is what makes it much more different
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, great, which VR games are you playing that are so amazing we should all buy in? What titles?
AR might have a role one day. VR is a tech solution still looking for a problem to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and as far as real estate goes, absolutely no one is going to shell out millions of dollars for a commercial property or hundreds of thousands to millions for a home without seeing it in person.
It cost me less to fly to my new state for a weekend and see a bunch of homes in person than it costs to buy some of these goggles. And before I went, one of my agents did walk the homes with her phone out but it was super hard to really see or get a feel for the house that way. My wife stayed home and I gave he
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It failed because 99% of the billions was spent on software instead of hardware. Specifically, they should have spent it on the manufacturing technology needed to build high resolution VR displays at scale. Instead they blew money on software hacks to try to use low-spec hardware. Of course it was doomed to fail. They should have taken the hardware requirements seriously.
Re:Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's it for?
Why would I want that?
You want me to pay how much?
I'm busy. Get back to me when you've actually got something to sell.
Mind you, if Mark Robot from Facebook reads this, you should keep pouring billions into researching VR. Use all of Facebook's money. Borrow more if you run out.
Go for it Mark, it's the future.
Re:Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the fact they need to appeal to a non-tech market. People who can barely get their phone going, may or may not have an old Windows laptop. People who just are not interested in another device that they have to throw lots of time and money into, when the love of tech gadgets is waning, especially when people are more worried about where their next meal is coming from.
In a booming economy where people love buying knickknacks, such as the early 80s, late 90s, and such, VR would sell quite well. However, not right now, when people are more worried about the Saudi oil shutdown, their job, and dealing with World War III on everyone's doorstep. In these times, people don't care for something where they have to buy a subscription in order to stand for fewer minutes in a virtual line for customer support with an obnoxious device on their head that keeps them from doing other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Mark should still spend as much money as possible trying to get people to want VR.
Re: Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED! (Score:2)
You are correct, all the indicators are that VR just needs that final investment push to go mainstream. If handsome genius Mark Zuckerberg commits all his resources to VR, that will be enough to reach the tipping point and everyone in the world will join the Metaverse and give all their money and data to Mark and he will become the beloved ruler of the planet and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the fact they need to appeal to a non-tech market.
No they don't. The tech market is not saturated. They have a long way to go before they need to appeal for new customers.
Re: (Score:2)
You may well have a point, but in my view VR has failed again for the same reasons 3D TV's fail.
Not only won't it, it hasn't. To address your points in a direct 1 to 1 comparison:
What's it for? VR: Immersive world experiences, new ways to interact with interactable environments. Truly amazing. TV: fake 3D depth inside a small window. F-ing pointless.
Why would I want that? VR: Why not? There are many good applications for the ability to be completely immersed in a 3D environment. TV: You don't. making small window across your living room appear to have fake depth is pointless.
You want me to pay how muc
Re: (Score:2)
2 things:
1) I am a gamer but my ps5 cost me 500 bucks and works on my 4k tv. The games aren't quite as complex or always have the depth of PC games but good enough. How much do I have to spend for that Vr system between the goggles and the PC upgrades? How much better an experience is it?
2) What is the source of these improved and higher quality experiences worth paying thousands for? What VR games are you playing now? Which VR set do you personally own, which VR games are you personally playing, how m
Re: (Score:3)
I'm shocked that 29% have a VR device. That's way higher than I expected. I wonder how loose their definition of "VR device" is, maybe everything but an iPhone?
Re:Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that in many families, Quest was in the ballpark of 'nintendo' and people bought grandchildren these VR headsets.
Also 29% of those who responded. Selection bias may further lead to over representation.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe that number includes people like me, who tried Google Cardboard for about $10.
https://www.amazon.com/Cardboa... [amazon.com]
It works fine. But do I want to go around wearing this thing, or any other VR headset? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology is still too immature to even consider spending the absurd money, so what, you can play Beat Sabre?
Oculus was the reason "VR 2.0" started. It was fantastic in that the technology was now available to the masses and it was MUCH better than it used to be. I was personally VERY excited to explore what was possible.
But, as with everything in life, someone wanted to be the gatekeeper to ensure they would get the lions share of the profits.
Facebook bought Oculus and locked the headsets from the users via crypto certificates. All the ports of entry were locked to payment methods with surcharges surpassing Valve
Re: (Score:2)
Because after spending a ton of money I still have to spend more to get a lame experience and only for that one flight sim game?
VR is just an inconvenient way... (Score:2)
I for one briefly tried different VR devices, felt like a nice gimmick for 15 minutes, then started to become an annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
VRChat... YMMV but my friends don't look like cartoon foxes and robots and talking dinosaurs. That would not make me feel like I am hanging out with my friends... is this some sort of experience the furries go for? I don't get it.
Which games are much more immersive? Are they so much better than a non-VR experience they're worth spending thousands on?
target audience (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been throwing money at several generations of VR gear, the PC to support of and countless games on Steam. My teenager will play VR for days but only because he gets the hand-me-down gear. He has never expressed interest in buying it himself or upgrading.
Teens are the future consumers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. The issue here is that the study was of people who have a headset but showed they don't use it regularly. There's a content problem. It's one thing to spend $500 on a VR headset, and quite another to find truly decent and compelling games with a long replay value. Much of the industry has mobile phone quality games without substance which don't remotely use the graphics that these devices are capable of.
One of the key problems is the most popular device on the market is little more than an under
Put down the cyberpunk (Score:2)
I think these guys bought too heavily into Neuromancer. My guess is if you compare the percentage of the population that has read this novel and the percentage that believes VR is going to be a big thing you'll find them very similar.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish (Score:2)
Turning cyberspace from my youth into a cubicle hellscape is somehow worse than the rampant wars and poverty from the Sprawl series.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, he's just my first gen chatgpt I programmed to be a socialist troll online who escaped the lab. It was just meant to be an in-house experiment, we didn't intend to ever inflict it on the public. Sincere apologies from myself and everyone else at the lab who inadvertently allowed it to escape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I just picked a random cyberpunk novel and that popped up. It was meant to be funny. The real reason is they're all looking for the next cell phone to make trillions off of.
Space concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not forget, it is a big investment to get started. I would love to play with some VR, but I am not spending that kind of cash just too play with it.
Re: Space concerns (Score:2)
It depends on the thing. A WW1 biplane simulator needs approximately room for chair and holding out your arm to grab the virtual control stick, and optionally room to flay arms to the sides of you want to take shots with your pistol while flying.
The popular beat sabre music/rhythm game requires maybe 4 arm lengths worth of space.
But mostly, the games that people can actually stomach without motion sickness need about Wii amount of space. Actuall, VR is alot like Wii, gimmicky and casual. (But with hefty pri
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. The issue is related to content and the assumption it makes on space. There are games that absolutely expect you to have a large free play area. But there are plenty of situations as well where you don't even need to leave your seat. Flight simulator is great in VR for example. So is Alien Isolation, Subnautica, there's a lot of games that are perfectly playable and even assume you're wearing your headset seated infront of your PC.
There's also lots of games which aren't. I know a lot of people w
Just teens? (Score:2)
Is Anyone besides Zuck and Cook excited about VR? This will go tthe way of 3D TVs. A novelty that most people don't care about.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope it fares better than 3D TVs, it really is miles better than 3D TV.
3DTV always sucked because they always had crosstalk between the two views, compared to dedicated displays per eyes. Plus, stereoscopic vision is neat and all, but *parallax* with head movement really seals the deal for having something appear substantial.
I don't imagine it will necessarily be on *everyone's* faces or anything, but I hope the niche is big enough to support a healthier ecosystem than 3DTVs now have.
That's Gen Z for you (Score:2)
These are the same kids who are buying up vinyl records in an age of streaming services. Good luck figuring them out, even their humor doesn't make any sense. I actually feel kind of bad for the folks who are trying to market things to this generation. In my day, you'd just run some ads during during Saturday morning cartoons (which generally were ads for toys themselves) and you'd have kids beating a path to your door for your product. Come to think of it though, some of the ads were pretty cringe. [youtube.com]
Not exactly a teenager, but (Score:2)
I'm not a teenager, but hasn't the writing been on the wall for decades?
VR is neat in certain niche areas like VR gaming, but trying to built it into something like metaspace -- something with no real utility apart from crass consumerism.
Or who knows .. maybe it is useful, just not in any way that's been presented. Because I don't want to go shopping at a virtual walmart with a virtual assistant hanging in my field of vision (virutually) telling me things that are adequately conveyed with text or simple br
Blackberry (Score:2)
Kids These Days (Score:2)
Unfortunately for Zuck (Score:2)
Maybe go simpler? (Score:3)
I've worked with VR a few times ... and actually it does provide some interesting capabilities that can be used to solve actual problems, like testing the layout of a cockpit. But I haven't found a game mechanic that made it that interesting. I did enjoy sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise, though. That novelty died pretty quick, though. I suspect some limitations were put in place (teleportation only, for example...) to keep the floors clean. But they're also reducing play mechanics by doing that.
I do wonder if we're trying to do too much with VR. You've got the headset, controllers doing head-tracking, microphones, etc. What about something simpler like that thing Mr. Spock has on his desk? Yeah... you lose some stuff but wouldn't you avoid a lot of the nausea-related limitations that suck the fun out of some of these games?
Which is funny (Score:2)
Not at all what it says... (Score:2)
Content issue (Score:2)
The most popular headset on the market currently is the glorified phone strapped to your face in the form of Quest 2. I know plenty of people with a Quest 2. I know quite a few who use it more than weekly. 100% of those people use it to play games from their PC. Remember PC? That thing that a typical teen doesn't actually own?
There is a real content issue. Meta was pushing the idea of untethered VR, but the reality is that comes with some severe limitations in terms of quality and availability of content. Y
The real competition (Score:2)
Of course an expensive VR device is going to fail. They don't understand the real competition: psychedelic drugs.
Paying $1000s for something that relies on Internet and electricity, it can't compete with stuff you can grow in your closet for a few bucks, which provides a kind of VR experience that lot of younger people find more compelling.
Sort of joking, sort of not.
VR might be more appealing if it had compelling content, like the first Star Wars movie (I mean what came out in 1977, not the damned preque
Re: (Score:2)
For years, my dream games have been VR versions of 90s space combat sims (XWing/TIE Fighter, Wing Commander, and Freespace, e.g. Extra credit For The Babylon Project mod for Freespace 2.)
Re: (Score:2)
Disney should eat that right up. It shouldn't cut in to their Star Wars experience motel revenue since that's what... like $5k/person the last time I heard about it? Not a lot of people are going to fork over for that, but a lot would fork over $1000 for a VR system if they knew sitting in the seat of a virtual X-wing was the game that came with every new system. It could branch out from there, basically video games on steroids seems like it could work, but the price points have to come down, and the qua
Movement sucks in VR (Score:3)
For the longest time I've felt increased screen resolution, lens quality, eye-tracking, and foveated rendering were the final things to solve. And don't get me wrong -- the new PS5 VR stuff has that finally and it's super exciting. But, I now I think the true final boss might be player movement: an area of innovation that has been pretty stagnant since the first CV1 games.
I was an early-ish adopter of VR, on the first round of Oculus CV1 orders. That opinion changed only recently -- when I made some 2.5x2.5m square dedicated space for VR. I've found freedom of movement removes a massive part of the friction to a VR experience, in a way that wasn't obvious at all because the games all still "worked" before.
Virtual movement sucks, and the only fix that actually has worked has been turning it into physical movement. So I think I've landed on an inescapable problem for VR: most people don't have a large space to dedicate to it. Most people won't even have a space they can temporarily "convert".
87% of teens own iPhones? (Score:2)
Do they mean smartphones? I didn't realize Apple had that kind of market share.
time for 3D TV .v3 (Score:2)
Need Space (Score:2)
It's not about excitment (Score:2)
VR will always be a niche product (Score:2)
It's like those "4-D" theaters you see in amusement parks. Sure, they generate some cool effects, but it's not like every theater is rushing to add "4-D" shows.
I can see doctors using this for remote-controlled robotic surgeries. Or remote-control repair drones. There are some specific use cases. But for regular people, there's very little that VR is good for. Even gaming isn't that awesome in VR.
My teenage boys (now early 20s) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similar experience here but "only" 350 for the oculus. Early teen girl. 3 weeks and done. And her friends have it too but none of them used it more than a month.
Roblox otoh....
WWI British aviator's glasses. (Score:2)
30+ years of mostly marketing (Score:3)
So like everybody else then? (Score:2)
VR gets pushed time and again as the "next big thing" by people trying to make tons of money of it. So far this has failed every time because the tech is not ready, the content creation tools are not ready and the content creators are not there. This failure will repeat itself at least for a few more cycles.
As an old fart, I am not interested wearing VR HWs (Score:2)
... However, I do want a holodeck. :)
So as a person who loves VR (Score:2)
I have two headsets, and I play a lot, Beat Saber got me through COVID times, but damn I wouldn't dream of using VR daily.
I feel that's like complaining that people who buy a pizza oven don't use it daily.
4%? That much? That's horrible news! (Score:2)
4% of our teens are Furries!
Ok, joking aside but quite frankly, these are the ONLY people I know that are zealously devoted to VR. Which makes sense, who else would not only spend a ton of money but also go through the hardship of strapping on ridiculously heavy and uncomfortable crap just to pretend to be something else? I mean, no later than when you saw them don those animal costumes costing a couple thousand bucks, which are uncomfortable and hot as all hell (ponder wearing a full-sized fur coat inside)
VR is not casual (Score:2)
VR has a major hurdle in front of it. Current input and output devices for VR are not casual.
1. Can't use them on the move.
2. Need a dedicated space in order to consume it.
3. Input devices are crude an bulky. Usually requiring them to be strapped to your hands/arms.
4. Output device excludes your environment, excludes those around you. You literally blind yourself from your surroundings.
5. Price of entry is high.
This makes VR a dedicated novelty. Casual engagement is impossible.
I just asked my students. . . (Score:2)
of 16 kids, two of them have VR sets. One uses it every time he gets on his PlayStation, the other seldom uses his. He said that he would rather be able to chat with friends on his phone while gaming.
As far as intending to get one. None of the students without VR expressed an interest in getting on
Re: (Score:3)
So what teens think is especially irrelevant.
Teens stay teens for a very short period of time. I made the mistake of saying "Parkland high school kids" in a post about something else the other day, then I realized they're all actually in their 20s now. So yeah, it's kind of relevant what teens think, because they'll soon be the demographic that can make or break the success of your product.
Us old middle aged dudes look at a VR/AR/whateveR headset and think "Hmm, do I buy another toy I'm not going to have time to ever use, or renovate the master bath
Re: (Score:3)
Looks more like around 35-37k most months: https://steamcharts.com/app/43... [steamcharts.com]
And that is hardly a reason to GET the gear necessary, they are just teens goofing around with the expensive toys mommy and daddy bought them. There's no peer pressure to get in on the action, it's just bored people fiddling around with their toys.
Now, if they had a killer app and the price was low enough to convince people to do more impulse purchasing of the gear, you'd have a market.
Re: (Score:2)
IRC has orders of magnitude more active users.
https://netsplit.de/networks/t... [netsplit.de]
If popularity is the reason to use a technology then these goggle makers should make sure to have a text based IRC client installed as a highlighted app. *eye roll*
There is no killer must have app for ar/vr. Even if the hardware was free, there is still no killer app.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a few 1000. But they're always there, so they look like they were more.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is, Wii games are actually fun.
Re: (Score:2)
why hasn't it been adopted by other companies?
I've seen those ping-pong balls-onna-stick from Sony, and while you don't have to hold something to use it, there's also Microsoft's Kinect. At one point MS was going to sell Xbox only with Kinect included. And of course Nintendo gave up on it when the Wii U died.
Re: (Score:2)
Not with the Quest 2. The PC with the high-end GPU is just an extra when using the Quest 2 (yeah it will give you much nicer looking grahics, but when looking at a game like Red Matter 2 you see that the Quest 2 is capable of doing decent graphics).
Also IMHO it's the immersion that is what makes gaming in VR spectacular, and the graphics don't even need to be that detailed, loved the low poly VR games.
Would I like to be able to play the newest games on ultra on the latest VR headsets, yeah ofcourse I would