Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that.
They also have the absolute worst business and product strategy in the world. Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
I have yet to meet a single person, anyone at all, who has expressed any interest in "The Metaverse". Even among my circle of friends who are heavily bought into VR. I struggle to find the appeal in a product vision focusing on letting anti-social people socialize.
This is a similar case where I feel a large disconnect between how innovative the technology itself is, and how myopic the use case is. Who would actually use this? Whose job would this improve? This is a solution in desperate search of a problem. At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that
I would argue Valve is the main driver of VR in terms of actual software + hardware + platform building. Facebook is just the biggest spender on VR right now.
> Who would actually use this?
Which is funny to me, because I can instantly think of over a dozen use cases for this stuff -- if Facebook was never involved. Use it for training, especially on-site training, use it for conferencing, use it for 3D visualization (basically half of the Hololens demos cross over)
But with Facebook owning it, the value prop of Oculus Quest is zero. It's no longer a hardware or software platform, it's a console, effectively no different than a Nintendo Switch or a PlayStation. Doesn't matter if the Quest was the best thing ever invented, no one reading Hacker News could deliver any products or solutions on it without Facebook owning/controlling it, so there's no reason for anyone to try.
I am glad that Meta is involved - I doubt anyone else would invest as heavily in VR as they are doing right now. Whether they end up being the main player or not in the future, I think this level of investment is actively inspiring the entire industry, and showing what is possible. (Compare similar views by Palmer Luckey [0])
Similarly, while essentially all smartphones before the iPhone were stylus or keyboard driven, within years of the iPhone being released there was a viable competitive platform in android. In the VR space, I highly doubt the vive or the pico headset would exist if it was not for the investments of Meta.
I love that you called it a console, because I got the weird flashback sense that I was watching a Nintendo Wii demo (of the teacher & student demo on the webpage)
This is why Facebook is so obsessed with VR. They're jealous of Apple's anti-competitive walled garden in mobile, and the're hoping VR will be the next thing to grab.
I live abroad from many friends and family. If there was a way to casually hang out and replicating the in-person social experience better than video chat, I would jump on that. I already have regular Quest 2 sessions with close ones where we shoot the shit and also shoot zombies - it feels like having a friend over for playing video games.
I for one am looking forward to being able to hang out in the same room, or discover new places, while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space. I am happy Meta is investing to make this closer to a reality!
I should clarify - I think the value of VR is creating transportive experience.
Opening up Google Earth and watching the sunset on Mount Rainier with a friend is transcendent. Sitting around a virtual boardroom talking to an avatar is not.
Meta's value proposition should be the a) the quality of the experience they provide (video games with friends included!) and b) the seamlessness to use. But a slightly more interactive video chat is not going to sell units.
> Opening up Google Earth and watching the sunset on Mount Rainier
Lmao… I hate to gatekeep, but having actually backpacked into the high country with friends and watched truly spectacular sunsets, there are so many aspects of that experience, and especially the ones that make it a truly transcendent experience, that just can’t be captured with a VR headset. For one, the physical aspects, being tired and the sense of accomplishment for getting their with your stuff, breathing thinner air, the humidity and breeze as the air changes from the sun setting. You can literally feel the warm life-givingness of the sun leaving. The actual full spectrum light—not RGB filtered—carries amazing amounts of nuance and illuminates everything in an extremely dynamic way; I have yet to see an HDR screen that does a good sunset justice, and I’m not entirely sure they can. And the sound, you can’t make your house in the city quiet and still like the mountain, at least not by putting on a headset, and that quiet lets you hear the littlest things!
By comparison, more interactive video chat, allowing me to feel like I’m sharing a space with a far flung friend, is much much more compelling to me. Online tabletop board games would be much more compelling if it felt like I was actually with the other person.
> especially the ones that make it a truly transcendent experience, that just can’t be captured with a VR headset
Agreed. But giving you a taste of something you may not have the resources/ability to do yourself is a much better use of the technology than giving you a taste of... playing board games in person.
> I already have regular Quest 2 sessions with close ones where we shoot the shit and also shoot zombies - it feels like having a friend over for playing video games.
How is this any different from playing Xbox/PlayStation with a friend online?
> ...while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space.
In my opinion there is something different about being "embodied" in a 3D virtual environment that is all around you, seeing the gestures of people you interact with and moving around. Certain human interaction modes, such as moving closer to hear someone, looking at the person you are talking to, gesturing to highlight conversation points etc are already qualitatively different in VR than video games imo. And it looks like this will further increase in the future with face tracking etc.
Why are you interested in casually hanging out with your friends and family under surveillance from an advertising company that will subject your private and personal communications to their censorship systems?
You might be simultaneously right and also totally missing the point and rude.
I agree with the gp. The quest 2 has helped me connect with friends in different states that felt way closer to inviting them over to hang out at the house than just video chatting or whatever.
There is real value in that. Even my wife who is not techy at all enjoyed it after first laughing in my face at the idea.
For better or worse, meta seems to be the only company currently trying to push this forward. So meta it is for now.
How can wanting to chill with friends possibly make them a bad friend? You brought up a good point but then kind of ruined it with such a wild accusation.
You're skipping the part about the advertising surveillance. If you were my friend and asked me to hang out, that's cool. If you were my friend but asked me to hang out where everything we did was knowingly by you subject to likely to have some company's algo running and attempting to influence what we did while hanging out, then yes, I'd say you were an asshole for a friend.
I didn't skip that. I said "You brought up a good point". I agree it was a good point. But they ruined the argument a bit by being overly dramatic. It would have been better to skip the judgmental snide remark at the end so we could have focussed on the good point.
Why are you chewing OP out as though you know for a fact that OP is the sole reason that that group of people uses Meta products? You have absolutely no insight into the decisions of that group of people, and instead of asking questions in an effort to learn more, you have suggested that OP is a bad friend.
Plenty of people enjoy VRChat, because you can interact with friends, but Facebook's attempt to get people excited to interact with brands and ads and work in a heavily locked down Metaverse is ridiculous.
I dont disagree that Meta is probably pouring the most money into VR right now, but there are other companies looking into it. Notably Apple might launch a similarly priced headset to the Quest pro soon. Bytedance has the Pico series which are basically Quest clones at this point, but they are looking to push the tech and outcompete Meta. They're not currently launched in the US, but that may change. Valve will probably launch an Index 2 eventually.
Some lesser known headsets brands like the Pimax and Varjo target prosumer-grade and enterprise headsets in the US too.
I'm not sure where you're located, but the Pico 4 isn't being sold in the US which automatically excludes a huge number of people who might otherwise consider it.
I'm in Europe, pre-ordered on Amazon, was thinking of waiting for reviews but the 256GB version went temporarily out of stock so I just pre-ordered. Let's see if I get fucked heh.
Funny enough, there was a scarcity of Quest 2s which drove prices up to dumb levels, while the US had Q2s aplenty :/
But really, I want one to watch stuff and play PC games and maybe use it as a monitor - the pancake lens apparently make it much more palatable.
I’m interested. I would love to be able to throw on a headset and sit on the couch and watch a movie with my sister, where I felt like she was watching in the room with me.
I also would like to have a meeting with my other WFH colleagues where I could tell whether people were making eye contact with me, because the conversation would flow smoother.
There's a thing called Big Screen VR. I'm wondering if your comment is saying that it's not viable for you (don't have the time, equipment, not a good enough experience), or that you've not heard of it. I'm not trying to be snarky "I think you'll find" just wondering if you've considered and rejected Big Scree.
Just like how over-ear headphones make my hair sweaty and itchy after a few hours, I can't imagine (personally) enjoying the feel of a clunky VR headset adding extra pounds onto my face.
Yeah, VR tends to have a hard-cutoff on the human body after ~2 hours. Most people will become physically exhausted before they reach that point, but if you do manage to make it a couple hours in, you'll almost certainly feel a little woozy.
Honestly though, the feeling of the headset on the face is the least-salient part of that discomfort (to me). It really is like a heavier pair of over-ear headphones in terms of physical profile.
> I also would like to have a meeting with my other WFH colleagues
My WFH space is my private space, and I'd rather not invite my colleagues into it. Voice + screen sharing is more than enough, so no thanks. And if my employer required it I'd let myself out.
Yes, I strongly think in the end VR will be huge. Massive online multiplayer games will be huge (think Ready Player One type of stuff). I think lots of people will use VR for work and hanging out with friends and maybe even dating.
However, in the end I doubt this will be on a ~Facebook~ _Meta_ platform, hardware, and or game. It will be funny because Zuck and crew will be the ones who accelerated this. I predict they'll lose in the end.
I think VR is already amazing for games. And maybe there will be some amount of social networking that occurs. But I have my doubts that there are enough people who would prefer hanging out virtually to significantly move the physical hardware in enough numbers sustainably.
> Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground
Workplace, portal, and the glasses? They're still developing as I understand it and they haven't given up on anything. The only failure I can think of is libra, which was killed by regulators
> Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
The Marketplace (competing with Craigslist) has more than 800 million customers using it which they have built that themselves?
> At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
Yet Hololens isn't aimed at consumers, Meta Quest Pro is aimed at both and the latter has the same use-cases as the HoloLens for half the price.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that.
And also the AR industry, which they have the technology (Oculus) and the research to do both.
The death of Meta Platforms Inc. has been greatly exaggerated.
There's still something missing on that concept, Metaverse is just a higher resolution version of Second Life. It was exciting in the first few hours but there's nothing in it.
Every device is sold at a loss though, as far as I know.
Meta got here in the first place because Apple filtered them out. So they want to be in control of the new device. Tried Facebook mobile, didn’t pan out, too strong competition, so trying VR. Bought Oculus and here we are.
What is the alternative? That they honestly want to become a VR-end-user-centric company? Have you seen their track record?
They also have the absolute worst business and product strategy in the world. Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
I have yet to meet a single person, anyone at all, who has expressed any interest in "The Metaverse". Even among my circle of friends who are heavily bought into VR. I struggle to find the appeal in a product vision focusing on letting anti-social people socialize.
This is a similar case where I feel a large disconnect between how innovative the technology itself is, and how myopic the use case is. Who would actually use this? Whose job would this improve? This is a solution in desperate search of a problem. At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.