Metaverse Off To Ominous Start After VR Headset Sales Shrank In 2022 (cnbc.com) 133
Sales of VR headsets in the U.S. this year declined 2% from a year earlier to $1.1 billion as of early December, according to data shared with CNBC by research firm NPD Group. CNBC reports: [D]ata from analyst firm CCS Insight reveals that worldwide shipments of VR headsets as well as augmented reality devices dropped more than 12% year over year to 9.6 million in 2022. Taken together, the estimates of VR headset sales and shipments create a problematic picture for Meta, whose stock price has lost about two-thirds of its value this year. Zuckerberg has said he's playing the long game with the metaverse, expecting it take up to a decade to go mainstream and projecting it will eventually host hundreds of billions of dollars in commerce. Sales of Meta's flagship Quest device dropped in 2022, a decline that can be attributed to the device's big year in 2021, said Ben Arnold, NPD's consumer electronics analyst. [...]
A confluence of factors contributed to lower sales and shipments in 2022. The Quest 2 has been around for a few years and, like any consumer electronics device, has lost some appeal as it's aged. And while Meta released a new VR headset in fall, the Quest Pro, that device is geared toward businesses and costs $1,100 more than the Quest 2, pushing it even further out of reach for many VR enthusiasts.
Next year is expected to be another "slow year" for the VR market, CCS Insight said in its latest report, citing a weak economy and inflation. [Leo Gebbie, an analyst at CCS Insight] said "consumer budgets will be tightening," and "non-essential purchases like VR headsets are likely to be the casualty of this."
A confluence of factors contributed to lower sales and shipments in 2022. The Quest 2 has been around for a few years and, like any consumer electronics device, has lost some appeal as it's aged. And while Meta released a new VR headset in fall, the Quest Pro, that device is geared toward businesses and costs $1,100 more than the Quest 2, pushing it even further out of reach for many VR enthusiasts.
Next year is expected to be another "slow year" for the VR market, CCS Insight said in its latest report, citing a weak economy and inflation. [Leo Gebbie, an analyst at CCS Insight] said "consumer budgets will be tightening," and "non-essential purchases like VR headsets are likely to be the casualty of this."
Killer App (Score:2)
They just don't have that Killer App for VR yet.
Maybe next year, maybe not.
Re:Killer App (Score:5, Funny)
"They just don't have that Killer App for VR yet."
Sure they do.
Meta will kill VR good.
Re:Killer App (Score:5, Funny)
"VR will kill Meta for good."
FTFY ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Killer App (Score:3)
You think a free to play game is a killer feature for a $300 minimum peripheral?
Has no one learned anything from the husks of failed peripherals littering the tech landscape?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Killer App (Score:2)
You have two options:
Make a game designed for VR and nobody plays because they don't have VR.
Make a game, then add VR, then people can buy a VR set to "enhance" the experience.
If you choose the latter and the game is free, then your audience is people playing a free game. They aren't going to buy a VR set.
No, adding it to a free game will not create a critical mass.
Re: Killer App (Score:2)
Elite: Dangerous is as killer as apps get. Certainly I get killed in it a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Elite: Dangerous is as killer as apps get. Certainly I get killed in it a lot.
Yes and no, I've played Elite in VR since 2015 and the VR experience has DEGRADED with each update as Frontier tries to chase the Fortnight crowd with less and less immersive gaming experiences in Odyssey.
Elite added VR as an afterthought in 2015, and as a seated cockpit experience it was perhaps the best of it's kind, but they never capitalized on this, and (innovator's Dilemma) VR was such a small portion of their user population that it was always the lowest priority to update and enhance
The issue is tha
Weird marketing chioces (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody at Facebook hired there sunday magazine friends to spend a week in it instead of choosing $2000 face creams and combination in going to saint zuckerberg church on sunday.
They went back to suggesting north korean slugs as the next super food in there next article.
Blessed be thy Mark
Re: (Score:2)
*their x2
No surprise this year (Score:2)
VR was enjoying exponential growth but it was bad year for it for many reasons.
a) Inflation means less discretionary spending, and VR is high on the list of discretion being a $400+ special purpose device.
b) The dimwit running Meta thought that this year of all years was the time to launch a $1500+ headset.
c) Supply issues at the start of the year.
d) No further development... literally no major hardware updates have come out targeting the consumer space.
e) Meta's spectacular fail with their shitty Horizon M
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. It'll trundle along on its own. Facebook/Meta is just losing a bunch of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. It'll trundle along on its own. Facebook/Meta is just losing a bunch of money.
You say that in a way that makes me think that all you know about Meta is their shitty Metaverse app. Facebook bought Oculus, they paid for the likes of John Carmack, they have poured more serious R&D into proper VR (not the $10bn they are blowing on Metaverse, but actual technical R&D in hardware and display software) than any other company. They funded many game studios to adventure into VR with some of the best VR titles to date aside from Alyx being from Oculus Studios.
Yeah VR probably will surv
Re: (Score:2)
Is this another 3D TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, a technology that has purpose and use but is being marketed as sliced bread: something everyone will want and buy into?
Turns out nobody really wants it like that at all.
or is it just not sufficiently developed?
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's the latter. Nobody wants to wear a big bulky thing on their head, lots of people get VR sickness, and the devices are expensive on top of that. All three of these problems have to be solved before VR can become a mass market technology. All three of these problems can theoretically be solved using technology which exists today, but not all at once.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Is this another 3D TV? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? There is force feedback. When I play table tennis the impact of the ball is true to life. While the GPU is limited on the headset the display is photorealistic. If you've viewed high quality pr0n you'd know that or connected to the PC and played something like HL Alyx.
Re: (Score:2)
When I play table tennis the impact of the ball is true to life.
That's hysterical.
Re: (Score:2)
Begone troll. You just run around tossing shade in line with popular ideas hoping people with brains fill in the blanks and give mod points while nodding along.
I'm not sure why I bothered looking; as if anyone but a troll would use narc for their handle. A narc eithers refers to a snitch or a dirty cop... I can't think of any circumstance under which someone picks that handle without being an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
your mother was a compliment to a drooling moron
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong and wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
VR sickness tends to be a short term problem. It diminishes pretty quickly and goes away for most within a few sessions.
I'd say they should do a better job of setting expectations so that people are preprogrammed to know it is normal and won't last but that could backfire and result in more people experiencing VR sickness via the power of the suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that were entirely true nobody would drink. Hell when you first start drinking you start feeling sick after just a couple of drinks. Push through that and you'll rarely feel sick and usually only when you've seriously overindulged. For that matter women wouldn't have sex after the first time. Nobody would drink coffee, etc.
The truth is there are many great things in life that come with a bit of discomfort at the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt great for at least the first couple dozen times I drank. NOW I feel like shit if I have more than a few drinks, which is fine... NOW
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone reacts a little differently I guess. I had a pretty solid hangover free existence through my 20's and 30's. Now I feel like shit if I have more than few as well. Must be my body's way of telling me I'm too old for that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course this was obvious a long time ago and while I think the Quest 2 has made strides in making VR more casual & inviting it's still not enough. And Meta / Zuckerberg seem to have lost their fucking marbles - $1500 headsets and conferencing facilities are NOT things that will draw more
Re: (Score:2)
3-4 50"-75" screens, control yokes and rudder pedals (for one or 2 users pilot/copilot), flight control quadrants, instrument panel add-ons, decent video cards. $10 grand and up, but a really immersive experience. There's something to be said about real controls over "simulated" ones.
So people WILL spend the money on their hobbies. But a vr headset just can't compare. Especially with two people (pilot/co-
Re: Is this another 3D TV? (Score:2)
I would also argue that a VR headset is pretty low on the list of peripherals you'd want for those games, too. Way before I though about a VR headset, I'd be looking into pedals, steering wheels/joysticks, force feedback chairs, etc. VR is the least impressive add-on for those games.
Re: (Score:2)
VR is the least impressive add-on for those games.
Said nobody who ever did so, ever. MSFS with a headset is fucking stunning. It's just-took-psychadelics-level amazing.
MSFS with 4 50"-75" big screens, flight yokes, rudder pedals, control quadrants, other gear - THAT is amazing. Especially with 2 people and dual controls.
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately though, flat screens simply aren't as immersive. Do what you like, and there will never be perspective through those panels. They will *never* emulate the behavior of a windscreen.
I'd take VR over big ass screens any day of the week.
And DCS is an entirely different game in VR- it's so much better that I can't even imagine playing it on a flat screen again.
The caveat I'll give, is I wouldn't do it on anything less than a 3090Ti.
My
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately though, flat screens simply aren't as immersive. Do what you like, and there will never be perspective through those panels. They will *never* emulate the behavior of a windscreen.
WTF do you think they use in REAL flight simulators? Human perspective is meaningless beyond 10' anyway, and the images you're looking at in MSFS outside the cockpit are all at least 10' away (unless you crashed).
Seriously, you can't override the basic physics of the human vision system. Anything more than 10 feet away, the brain is using other cues to determine depth - not the difference in images between the two eyes. It's also why people can sense depth with only one eye. Or two eyes with different re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VR isn't there yet, and probably never will be. With big screens, you see YOUR hands on the flight yoke and throttle quadrant, not a "representation." If you're doing 2-person dual-control setup, the person sitting next to you is also easily visible, not a "rendered representation."
Ditto anyone else standing around. No stupid headset required.
Plus it's easily used for other stuff, like regular computing. The stupid headset - nope! Otherwise zuck the schmuck would insist all his workers dogfood it full-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, not many people have space for big screens. The fact that VR is incorporated into most modern flight / race sims demonstrates the demand for it.
My current setup - 4 x 50" screens - fits into 11'. The previous setup - 3 x 50" screens - fit into 7-12 feet. And let's not forget, they double as TVs. The original setup - 2x 50" screens - fit into less than 6'.
Most people have 6' of space.
The declining headset sales show the lack of demand for VR. Just because a feature is available doesn't mean anyone wants it - see the Metaverse as just one example.
Re: (Score:2)
Go look at a real flight simulator. Or if you don't have access to one, watch "Sully."
It's flat panels for outside the cockpit views all the way down.
There's actually a business here that has a fully decked out cockpit (of an Airbus, I think), they also use flat panels. Because that's the industry standard. A headset will get in the way of actually properly interacting with the physical controls, since you won't actually see them, just a rendering of them. Same as you won't see your copilot, just a ren
Re: (Score:2)
Everything we see is ultimately projected onto the flat surface of our retinas. In other words, a 2-D image.
Did you just try to disprove 3D vision by the fact that images are projected onto a retina?
They did have trigonometry when you went to school, right?
An image projected onto a flat plane in front of your eyes is not the same as your eyes looking through that plane.
That is why looking at a TV looks like looking at a TV, and looking at a big win
Re: (Score:2)
The human eye is a marvel - but the perception of depth is completely an artifact of the brain. Only the most central portion of the eye has enough cones to even begin to process image data to help create the sensation of depth, and that's only for a very very narrow field of view - the fovea centralis is only 1/3 of a mm in diameter, and is responsible for collecting almost all of what contributes to "depth perception." And the fovea centralis is FLAT.
So your 3d vision is essentially a projection of lig
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you bring up "relevant" - you and pretty much everything here is irrelevant. I was wondering exactly what was missing, what had changed, and figured it out a few days ago.
Really - it's all just plain irrelevant. Cripes, even bleepingcomputer ranks higher than here. But neither breaks the top 20,000. Even ars, way higher, doesn't break the top 1000. Slashdot effect is a dim memory.
Then again, with the "gentrification" or "democratization" of tech to the masses, tech-only web sites are a dying
Re: (Score:2)
There is a rational motivation behind VR, but not yet for the *consumer*. What is fueling this drive for a metaverse is the prospect of being able to charge (economic) rent on virtual properties. It's easy to see why the potential owners of a metaverse would want that, they just haven't figured out how to get consumers to pay that rent.
Re: (Score:2)
or is it just not sufficiently developed?
I wouldn't draw any conclusions from 2022. Every year prior VR has been on exponential growth path like any new technology, but 2022 was a multi-pronged shit show of a year. We have inflation, lack of spare capital, no new consumer headsets launched (i.e. no development), Meta has shat the bed with the Oculus Pro, shutting Oculus Studios and causing Carmack to throw in the towel, and Sony shat the guest bed with their announcement that the PSVR2 won't be backwards compatible with old games as well.
To top it
Obvious reason (Score:3, Interesting)
The resolution of it sucks. They've been incrementally increasing resolution, and it's dumb. They need to figure out foveated rendering technology and make the display ultra high resolution (70 pixels per degree, across at least a 110 degree field view, and at 120 fps), there is NO OTHER WAY. If they can't do it, then VR can't be done it's as simple as that. It might well be impossible. I don't know. I mean, I feel like it's totally possible if they tried. If they can't do it, they should just shut down their offices and put in something useful like Thai food restaurants and maybe a strip club there.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't suck. The graphics on much of the content sucks. Too many people do cartoonish crap. If you connect to a decent PC and play half-life it looks real now.
Improvements to the display wouldn't be unwelcome but improvements to the content are what is really missing.
Re: Obvious reason (Score:2)
"real"
No it doesn't. You play too many video games.
Re: (Score:2)
What's weird is that you seem to have some seriously sour grapes over that fact. Financial difficulties? A high-quality HMD and beefy enough of a PC to run it is pretty expensive.
Re: Obvious reason (Score:2)
A VR headset? I have absolutely used one, you ignorant troll. Sounds like you're the one with too little money to afford the cool whizz bang thing you bought.
Re: (Score:2)
I have too little money to afford the cool whizz bang thing I bought? How did I buy it?
I have more money than any 6 people need, which means I have a lot of dumb shit, like really expensive GPUs to run really expensive HMDs.
Is it something I think people need? Fuck no. Is it amazing? You bet your ass.
So what you should do, is find a friend who can afford them, and use them, because as I said- it's clear you're just talking out of your ass.
Re: Obvious reason (Score:2)
Sure. Those who disagrees with you must have no idea what they're talking about. You silly bitch. Get off the VR porn and get a life, loser.
Re: (Score:2)
What headset do you have? Because I can easily see the screendoor effect in EVERY headset except in the tiny focus area of the Varjo 3. I can see it slightly there too, but I have greater than 20/10 vision (ophthalmologist couldn't measure any better.)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read that some people claim it has SDE... but I've never personally seen it, nor have any of the dozen or so people who use mine during holidays complained of it (though they probably wouldn't have known to look for it).
Your vision is quite a bit better than mine, though.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been incrementally increasing resolution, and it's dumb. They need to figure out foveated rendering technology and make the display ultra high resolution
Parse error: Action defined as dumb but then subsequently defined as critical to success.
Or are you suggesting the dumb part is that companies are incrementally making technological improvements instead of flicking that magical ultra resolution technology switch that was gifted by the technology fairies?
Because I hate to break it to you: fairies aren't real.
If they can't do it, they should just shut down their offices and put in something useful like Thai food restaurants and maybe a strip club there.
Fuck me I'm glad you weren't around in the 80s. "What's this computer thing, a black and white screen? Useless. Don't even bother. Just give up. If you
It's the cooking process.... (Score:4, Interesting)
VR didn't spend enough time being tinkered with in a "bunch of garages" before being picked up by large corporations.
Imagine if ID software was acquired by some massive corporation right after Doom or Quake.
Meta will set the technology back by decades.
Re: (Score:2)
VR didn't spend enough time being tinkered with in a "bunch of garages" before being picked up by large corporations.
Garage dwellers have little to nothing to add here because you need very expensive components to even build a halfway decent VR headset, notably a pair of very small but high resolution displays.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree with your assertion but not the final conclusion. VR got a huge boost thanks to Oculus being acquired by Meta. Carmack is on the record as saying it wouldn't have come this far without the R&D invested. On top of that Meta funding actual game development was amazing.
That said... your conclusion is right. Meta, or rather Zuckerberg's year long feverdream will set the technology back, but only because of their idiotic metaverse push and marketing towards business applications where no one really
Re: (Score:2)
My Valve Index made Meta/Oculus devices look like cheap toys.
I'd say the "boost" they got, is adoption, simply because their devices were shitty and cheap.
Which is cool, I guess, but ultimately doesn't really matter to me. The tethered gaming market is also thriving, and there are millions of tethered units on homes as well, so honestly, who gives a fuck? Why should I care if VR comes to end up in every single house or not? It's in mine, and game developers are cater
Re: (Score:2)
Quest headsets run Android and you can sideload literally any APK. There is no walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can hack the headset and violate the terms of service by sideloading an application. Of course you can jailbreak your iphone too. It is still a walled garden.
The fees for inclusion in the store are outrageous and the terms prohibitive to real indie developers. The platforms most killer app right now is pr0n and pr0n is literally banned. That is bonkers. On the flip side they want to exclude children... that is the dumbest move in history, those children get older in just a few years and become the b
Ponder the target audience (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's be honest here, who'd want it. And I don't mean "if you hype and market it enough they will buy it". That doesn't fly with something where you not only have to drop 1500 bucks on it but also have to remodel your home to accommodate the new family member, essentially requiring you to set aside a room or at least a considerable portion of it. Something like this will only be done if the target audience already WANTS what you offer.
Well, what does 3D offer?
From a purely technical point of view, it offers a 360 degree by 360 degree computer screen that moves about with you for the about 5x5 meters of freedom you have. To get that, you have to give up mouse and keyboard and replace them with far inferior input devices and your display quality is lower, to the point where any writing is only legible if large enough to make it through the diminished resolution and motion blur.
In other words, forget it for any "sensible" operations. You can't take notes sensibly, you can't draw or write on a whiteboard sensibly, anything you do must be in VR because you have no sight and only limited sound of the reality you're in and there are far superior tools available for anything office related.
So... gaming? Also no. Yes, the "immersion" is great, for a few minutes. After that, it gets frustrating at best. Especially if you're used to "normal" inputs like keyboard/mouse and/or gamepad. The input controls are just too imprecise and awkward, and of course they lack any feedback, which makes you realize that you're essentially flailing like an idiot instead of actually doing what you would if you actually did what you allegedly do. And you also quickly notice that flailing like an idiot is about as successful a strategy as learning to be precise, so the whole "practice makes perfect" that gamers are going for is out the window. So VR would be great for some party gaming, but who has the money (and space) for like 4-6 VR sets... plus, why the hell have a party in the first place when you just isolate yourself from the others again?
Another interesting effect is that teenagers trying out VR sets were complaining that they felt they lost contact with their peers around them. Imagine that, the generation lost in their cellphones who chat in Telegram and Whatsapp across the room rather than speaking with each other feels isolated by that technology. I'm out of words.
So I have been searching far and wide for someone who actually embraced that technology. And I've found it in an unlikely place, even though if you think about it, these people are essentially the quintessential target audience for something that allows you to pretend you're in an alternative world where you, like everyone else, can pretend to be someone or something else: Furries and Cosplayers.
These are actually the ONLY people I could identify that would be desperate enough to pretend being someone or something else that they put up with all the hardship and shortcomings VR comes along with. It's also groups that are well known to spend a fortune on their hobby. But these two groups also already have found their VR place: VRChat. And dislodging them will not be easy, have you ever tried transplanting a community? It ain't easy.
So what can the Metastasis do? One thing would of course be to buy VRChat so they finally have an audience for their VR stuff. With the usual embrace-extend-extinguish strategy, this could eventually push these people into the places Metastasis wants. Is that the demographic you want, though? These two groups are not exactly known for their ... let's call it family friendliness. And by extension, advertiser friendliness.
In other words, Metastasis is fucked. And I can't see anything wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly be interesting, but I doubt that we have the calculating power (yet) to pull this off. The whole thing feels a bit like what "multimedia" was in the late 1990s: Something that could be useful, but the technology just isn't there yet. You might remember the term. It was basically what we used for the stuff we consider normal today: Watching videos on computers, having an interactive, high-def experience on our screens. Back then it was all the craze, with grainy, short snippets of movies
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a good comparison; VR does look like it's still very much in its early days, especially as far as mass adoption is concerned. Looks like these people are already using VR for 3D CAD: https://mindeskvr.com/ [mindeskvr.com], but even the short video excerpts on their page look clunky, heh.
Honestly, someone has the computing power for this today, but the cost for such compute (and related VR gear) is too high, so there's not enough of a market to develop the requisite software to high quality.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be difficult to be this wrong about VR gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to elaborate, because it was not only my experience but also the result of a few interviews I had with players.
Re: Ponder the target audience (Score:2)
Sorry your pet hobby is dead on arrival.
Re: (Score:3)
Fucking fascinating use of that word.
Re: Ponder the target audience (Score:2)
The 360 TV screen description is apt. This is all Iâ(TM)ve ever thought of this technology from when I first tried it a decade ago. It just feels like sitting in front of a giant screen where you have to crane your neck to see the full picture. I never once felt like I was actually anywhere else. And Iâ(TM)ve even tried a VR place where they have a flying rig for you to lay in and imagine youâ(TM)re flying with the goggles on.
VR is just the latest tech fad that only excites the same small gro
Re: (Score:2)
And you also quickly notice that flailing like an idiot is about as successful a strategy as learning to be precise, so the whole "practice makes perfect" that gamers are going for is out the window. So VR would be great for some party gaming, but who has the money (and space) for like 4-6 VR sets... plus, why the hell have a party in the first place when you just isolate yourself from the others again?
I think videos of 4 to 6 people flailing around, punching each other by accident, could be monetized.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, but it's very likely not financially viable. Not to mention that I think videos of 4 idiots flailing about and punching each other will get a copyright violation takedown request from American Gladiators.
Because vr is pointless (Score:3)
My adult nephew got an Occulus from my sister on Christmas. Several of the guys were messing around with it for about an hour, mostly playing golf. (They're all golf fanatics).
And then everyday since then have spent their usual 3-4 hours out on a real course and haven't touched it since Christmas night. The novelty wore off that fast.
VR is going nowhere until it can serve a general purpose. I said something about telemedicine to my doctor niece. She said no, it's not being seriously used there either. She's very recently graduated from medical school and telemedicine wasn't even on the curriculum.
Until a purpose is found VR is going no where.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously VR isn't going to replace ACTUALLY PLAYING GOLF.
This is a dumb post.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously? That is -exactly- the kind of thing the vr folks want to happen.
Yes, your post was dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously? That is -exactly- the kind of thing the vr folks want to happen.
Errr no. Thinking VR = golf just shows youAreWayDumberThanEveryone.
You're on a roll with dumb posts.
Re: (Score:2)
You are illiterate. It was an example. One of two I brought up. Your obsessive focus was amusing. Now you're just your normal every day drunk-posting self and boring.
Would you like to actually address what I actually said instead of straw manning me again?
Straw man is one of the weakest rhetorical attacks possible. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously? That is -exactly- the kind of thing the vr folks want to happen.
Any supposed "vr folks" who hope for a computer platform to replace an actual sport are as fucking stupid as you are.
Your criteria for the success of VR is whether or not it replaces an actual sport.
The list of things that have failed by your definition is literally all-inclusive. Does it take actual effort for you to say shit that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
My criteria for success is not replacing a sport. my criteria is explicit in my original post. If you weren't illiterate or bothered to read what I said before frothing out a triggered reply you'd know that.
Your stupidity is not bounded by illiteracy. Read what I actually said, not what you want me to have said be come back. Then I can finish your lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Several of the guys were messing around with it for about an hour, mostly playing golf. (They're all golf fanatics).
And then everyday since then have spent their usual 3-4 hours out on a real course and haven't touched it since Christmas night. The novelty wore off that fast.
No, sorry, dipshit.
You point out that some golf nerds spent most of an hour playing on it, and then stopped playing on it once they started playing real golf daily.
Truly, you are a stupid fucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, you're an illiterate idiot. It was a single example. What an easily triggered fool you are. I've already answered your exact same garbage several times now. Put down the bing when posting. You didn't even get the basics of my golf story right much less did you bother to read or understand the rest of it.
How does it feel to be the dumbest person on a site full of illiterate morons?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the point of me making fun of you- because you are exactly that. You're just not a very intelligent person, so you always provide examples that make you look stupid. I'm just pointing them out so that one day you might realize how stupid you are and try to fix it. Don't shoot the messenger, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats, you found an example of someone who didn't like it. I can give you countless examples of people who got a Quest and have poured countless hours into play games and still use their headsets every day. I'm on my 3rd headset by the way.
Not everyone likes everything. That doesn't mean something has no purpose. In fact I played golf once. It was the single most mindfuckingly boring activity I have every wasted my precious life on and I'll be happy never doing it again. Clearly golf is going no where.
Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets vr for -anything-?
That is exactly the point, thank you for figuring it out.
If not for telemedicine and not for golf and not for anything else so far... what is vr good for?
As I said, nothing.
If you've got the killer app you could be a billionaire on that idea. Go for it. I'll wait over here quietly watching you become the next Bill Gates. I suspect I'm in for a reeaaaaally long wait while you think up something. Because no one else has.
Wake me up... (Score:5, Interesting)
When it's a pair of glasses you can put in your pocket
When the same device can be both augmented reality and full immersive
When we have a resolution high enough to look real
When there's a frame rate high enough to not make you vomit
When there's enough battery life long enough to last all day
When the platform it runs on is open source
When there's an actual use-case for the tech
When the cost barrier to entry isn't sky high
I can't see many of these happening in a hurry - the thing is, actual reality is quite effective, nature has kinda nailed it.
Re: Wake me up... (Score:2)
Good night Rip Van Winkle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm not touching a computer until it's converted into a mind chip that mentally projects a screen in front of me. All technology is worthless until it matches how the SyFy channel told me it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your keyboard fit in your pocket? Your monitor? I don't know why you'd want to use VR much "on the move"
When the same device can be both augmented reality and full immersive
Most VR helmets have passthrough cameras. VR and AR aren't the same anyways. Different use cases.
When we have a resolution high enough to look real
Modern VR is 5k. What's your monitor? Is your monitor real enough for you?
When there's a frame rate high enough
Re: (Score:2)
"Does your keyboard fit in your pocket?"
You seem to be missing one of the key value features that Augmented Reality could bring in that format, the fact that data can be presented, over the top of what you are looking at. Not need to explain further why that is useful.
Nobody is going to want to wear a bulky device to facilitate that.
Think Google Glass, but way better.
"Most VR helmets have passthrough cameras. VR and AR aren't the same anyways. Different use cases."
Sure, still a big bulky bit of kit - and th
10 years, time to sleep on it (Score:2)
It's cheaper than a CAVE system (Score:2)
CAVE is where you're surrounded by potentially ultra-hi-res fixed monitors, you get to use conventional devices, and you can potentially get to have high-end 7.1 audiophile-quality audio. Because everything is fixed and cabled.
CAVE will also let you handle all sorts of extra physical motion (since you're basically inside a giant tracker all).
(It's what I think people are imagining VR headsets to be like in terms of experience.)
So, for right now, if you want high-end, CAVE is obviously better than VR. Google
Re: (Score:2)
Failathon (Score:3)
Zuck and Musk are competing to see who can sink their own company first.
Re: (Score:2)
Was VR designed for the wrong generation? (Score:2)
Weak Economy? Inflation? (Score:2)
No, you raised the price of the base model headset 25% and people stopped buying them.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that. Your latest technological innovation was not newer better and for the same price (or the aforementioned 25% higher), it was newer better and costs 300% more.
Analysts predict economy while economists can not? (Score:2)
How come the economists can not tell us "consumer budgets will be tightening" but the analysts can? Last I heard no economist was sure if there will be a recession (although lots of companies s