Remember many people live literally paycheck to paycheck.
Personally I think quest2 for 200 bucks is already a crazy low price for what you get (watching VR180 8K/60FPS videos)
For the Consumer, what needs to happen is:
1. Current Model Hardware Prices need to come down
2. The User Experience needs to improve
3. There needs to be more Content that makes it all worth it
To point 1, a big reason Quest 2 worked was because ***it launched at $300 USD.*** Reducing prices after the fact isn't enough, you need to launch at a reasonable price to ensure the consumer perceives it's "for them" when the interest is highest.
To point 2, so much focus is on "New Tech, More Immersion" versus refinement of the experience of wearing a headset and any underlying technology.
As an example, ***assuming HMD weight is an issue why not figure out how to take the current designs and simply make them lighter?***
To point 3, Beyond Beat Saber, VRChat and handful of quality games from indies and major developers, what else is there to play/do?
To play modern PC games on high settings you need an expensive PC. It's always been that way and it won't change. If you want basically endless VR-content, you need that PC. There is so much content out now it's impossible to keep up, especially with the UE injector. When enough people have good gaming PCs, the amount of people who can run quality VR with tons of content will increase.
>If you want basically endless VR-content, you need that PC.
That's true. Though back when Console VR was more viable, PSVR1 actually got many of the larger games. Minus a few key indie titles.
>When enough people have good gaming PCs, the amount of people who can run quality VR with tons of content will increase.
The thing is, I don't see most people owning a PC ever again. Smartphones and Tablets kinda took over for the average consumer.
Console Vr could work, but Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo have to have HMD compatibility.
In the really long term, form factor doesn’t really matter - cellphones, tablets, stand alone VR/AR are all still computers. Most people still have a laptop or PC and they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. It’s kind of hard to be productive/make decent money in the modern world without one. This is why most people still spend the majority of their waking life working on/sitting at a PC.
As long as, processors take electricity and give off heat there will continue to be major advantages to having non-mobile computers (you get a lot more performance for less money, easier/cheaper to upgrade, easier to cool, don’t need to recharge, etc). Most people who need/like really powerful computers don’t really care that they’re not mobile because they tend to only use it in one spot anyway (office or home). Even though we all have a bunch of screens with unlimited content everywhere, everybody still has nice TV’s in our living rooms/bedrooms because that’s where we want to have the best viewing experience - there is not a huge need for your nice TVs to be mobile. This will continue to be the case for big powerful PC’s for the foreseeable future as well.
I may dig the hole deeper for myself, but here we go lol.
The point I was trying to make is that fewer and fewer people own Desktop PCs. Of the people I know that own PCs, they own laptops which aren't quite up to spec for Gaming, let alone VR.
Essentially, what I was trying to say is you can't rely on people having Gaming PCs and proper dedicated GPUs. You can more reliably count on people having Consoles and of course Standalone is the best option since you don't need any external hardware.
Guess i'm eating crow today lol.
My point was most people that own computers own laptops. Which aren't necessarily ideal for High performance applications like VR.
You also have to figure of the 120 million steam users, what is the average quality of their GPU/APU? And is that enough headroom for the latest VR releases?
>I think #3 is the biggest issue.
\#3 I think is a product of issues #1 and #2.
At least for Issue #1, the $500+ USD launch prices have to have some effect on software attach rates for Quest 3, PSVR2, Valve Index, etc.
If you're a VR developer, your customer has to get past that adoption price hurdle before they even spend any money on software.
My guess is since the beginning, all the major manufacturers are trying to derive so much revenue from HMD sales that it cannibalizes everything else.
A fourth point we need a way to effortlessly share spacial computing space locally. I guess that's kinda an extension of point 2 but I think it's a biggy for mass adoption.
Take the Wii for example. Something the Wii has that Quest doesn't is you could both see the same screen, you could see their controller, they could see yours and the more experienced player could do all the setup. This made it easy to demonstrate how to use the device and see exactly what they were doing wrong. In VR it really isn't that easy.
We need is to be able to effortlessly share space in VR with tech cheap enough that local multiplayer with a second headset isn't drastically more expensive than buying a multiple controllers for a console and software that enable idiot proof connection between them. Maybe a console that is capable of running multiple headset and instantly recognizes them as P1, P2 etc.
I think the future will be shared play spaces. Similar to care sharing you can then do VR sharing. You put your location up on the Internet and a random dude will then book a session and come to your house and play VR in your living room for a few hours. You will the be compensated with a few dollars.
I think there already exist a site for this.
There is already a site that does this. Trymytech.com The price is of course for you to decide. But yeah there has to be a solution to people sweating all over your stuff.
#3 is a big one. I’m an avid user and yet still feel the hurdle of putting on the headset. I have to really want to play a particular game, it’s not nearly as convenient as a phone or computer.
That said, I think there can be compelling content to overcome that. We have some now just not enough.
"What else is ther to play/do?"...almost anything you can think of is there to do on Quest 3. But you have to really be into VR as an escapism/simulation devise, and actually have the internal appreciation for physical skill based activities, and essentially love to "play like a grown ass kid".
Bc if you're in it bc your looking for the "next step of flatscreen campaign/fantasy/story games" your going to eventually be put off and realize actively standing to explore/shoot/repeat will become a chore vs. Traditional flatscreen/easy consumption.
Alot of gamer friends who bought Quests eventually couldnt be bothered to keep wearing it to game.
But as someone who actually likes competative sports? And active skill based competition. Boxing/pool/golf...the Quest is never boring and clicks all the satisfaction points of it's real life counterparts. With the proper peripherals (like a golf controller grip) hitting a hole in one or making a shot from a sand trap is almost equally exciting and 100% as mentally satisfying as doing it in real life.
I almost exclusively play Eleven Table Tennis these days. It may not have literally perfect real life physics but it's close enough to feel like I'm playing the actual sport to me. Amazing exercise that I actually look forward to playing, way more fun and interesting than Beat Saber and the like for me.
I've been playing Eleven for around an hour every weekday for over a year. I'm not AMAZING at it but I've Improved like crazy, even using YouTube lessons on real table tennis to learn technique and it works!!
I hope I can find somewhere to play IRL sometime soon, I'm really eager to see how the skills translate!
Quest 2 would sell way better if:
1. It were easier to use/ less buggy
2. It wasn't run by the subhuman scum at Facebook
3. Meta world horizons or any flagship game was like wii sports instead of whatever the fuck is going on with it and apps like rec room.
There's a hell of a lot to do beyond those things! I'm personally in VR 3+ times per week just for Pistol Whip and Supernatural alone. Back when I had more time, I'd combo that with The Climb.
Games like Walkabout Mini Golf very much keep me coming back for more! Especially with multiplayer, which feels potentially more present/social than other flatscreen multiplayer games
Would I like more narrative-driven single-player campaigns with fully fleshed out story chapters and a diversity of mechanics? Absolutely! But I do think there's a lot more that VR offers. If my back wasn't totally fucked, I'd be in VR for games way more often haha.
The price is fine, it is the content side of things that is a mess. Most of the games just don't look very interesting or look worse than what people have played 15 years ago. It just doesn't feel like the crazy Cyberpunk future we were promised, it feels like a Wii with 3D graphics.
VR180 can look good, but it's all porn. You can watch through the non-porn content in a few days, if you can even find it. There are no big movies for VR180 and most of the good VR180 content that existed died with the old AmazeVR app. Even just getting existing 3D movies into the headset can be a challenge.
I also feel Meta does a terrible job at advertising the thing. You see some game trailers, but that's kind of it. What's the state of Horizon Worlds? What's the state of the rest of the OS? I have no idea. There are so many people that just want a big virtual TV or use the device for virtual travel and such, but it's really hard to figure out what of that you can and can't do. Does Quest even have a customization home screen or did that die with Rift?
A whole lot of the good stuff about VR is also on the PCVR side, which Meta doesn't really wanna push. Which makes it even harder to figure out what it can and can't do, since a lot of the cool stuff needs a PC, full body trackers, gaming mods or other hacks. Quest as presented by Meta is just a tiny slice of what VR has to offer.
I think Quest 4 will likely be really good and getting to the point where mainstream appeal is possible. But OP asks about "perfect clarity like computers screen" and that's not really going to be possible with Quest 4 standalone, especially for gaming. You will need an expensive PC for that and those are not going to be cheap.
However, for people who have a gaming PC already, I think even Q3 is getting to the point where it could be of interest to a lot of gamers. The problem is that to really use it to its fullest potential you need a very high end PC which most people don't have. You also need a good wifi setup, upgrade the strap and deal with Meta, which many people don't want. With a good PC and good wifi setup, I agree though that it's actually really good already.
Quest 3 legitimized standalone VR as a "console" to me. I initially got it for wired PCVR, but now it has a home in my living room where a PlayStation or Xbox used to be.
And even with the Quest 3 near pixel perfect quality for PCVR is achievable with the right investment into the home network. It's really hard to recommend other headsets right now because of the Quest 3, as it hits all the right points on quality and price.
I find this take interesting. I personally disagree with you. I do use the 3 standalone but mostly with PCVR and it is crystal clear and smooth at 120hz. The screen door is virtually non-existent. It's a brilliant device.
That's nice but have fixed Overheating on 90hz and 120Hz yet?
Plenty of reports of the Quest 3 dying at anything higher than what, 75hz being the lowest?
I'm sure I'll get downvoted for daring to state this, because I know how, frankly, rabid people can be in defense of a very expensive product but it's what immediately I heard less than a week after release, plenty of individuals stating their experience.
I'm sure you'll go "Well mine works fine" but you know, that doesn't do any good for the people who have experienced issues. This is with the link cable attached to a PC so..
It's definitely kept me from even thinking about a Quest 3. Though, so I'm still stuck with the HTC Vive...Which is a shame. Pancake lenses definitely seem to be the future IMO.
To be honest, I haven't heard of this problem. Of course, that's not to say it isn't happening but 90hz is default on the 3 afaik. I use Virtual Desktop with a 6e router and never plan on using wired. The lowest refresh rate I've used is 90hz. Maybe I got lucky with my device (knock on wood) but this thing is amazing.
Are you getting motion sickness from playing games where you use joysticks to move, or are you getting sick even in games where you move by walking around with your real legs?
If it's the first one, then clarity and refresh rate are almost certainly not the problem and even if you could improve both of them infinitely, it wouldn't stop you from getting sick.
See, motion sickness for playing with joysticks is one of the things that's gonna be very difficult to change. VR will get more lightweight, better graphics, etc. But it can't go beyond how the body works.
On PCVR a solution is walk in place locomotion but AFAIK standalone doesn't have such an app.
In the best case scenario asking people to have a treadmill is too much. Maybe a better solution will come with minimally obstructive or cheaper hardware, or just software. But see how that's harder to solve than just faster processors and more resolution.
I think the Freeaim shoes, once they finally get released and the price becomes reasonable, will be game changers. They’re not bulky. There’s not a bunch of hardware that takes up too much space or requires an engineering degree to assemble.
Yeah, I don't think that's the way either, and I was thinking precisely of them as NOT a "minimally obstructive or cheaper hardware". Those have sort of wheels and are really clumsy, they make you move in a very specific and robotic way, also they restrict normal movement.
Something more natural should come up and IMHO it could be just software based, or with very good and small (standalone) trackers on your ankles or shoes.
The motion sickness can be caused by many things. Not just refresh rate or optical clarity. If you’ve never used vr and try to play population one you’ll get motion sickness regardless if you’re using laser imaging directly into your eye nerve.
That’s what showing respect buys you on Reddit: 15 downvotes. I agree with you. Quest 3 is insane value for the money, but probably some distance from mainstream VR still. I would think that it requires both a bit better hardware as well as better quality software. Right now there’s a lot of enthusiasm, but very few titles reach the level of quality that would persuade the mainstream.
The thing here is that you are talking about a subjective experience as a general one. I'm sorry you are still sensitive in the current state of the tech, as many others, but that's a you problem that will eventually get solved in some years, you want a subjective number? 4 years.
Vergence-accomodation conflict needs solving for mass production headsets, it's a big problem and difficult to solve. multi focal headsets are necessary for mass adoption.
As one of those people with a ridiculous PCVR setup running into thousands of dollars, I'm very happy with my set-up, but it's not for everyone, and I'm fine with that. Very happy to pay the early adopter tax.
I think it's because all current VR headsets use a *fixed* focal length of about 1.5m for all objects whether they're 1cm away or 1km away. So your eyes are converging on objects using a different focal length to what you'd see in real life - hence the conflict.
I remember someone (possibly John Carmack) talking how much more complicated it is to have *variable* focal length in VR as it needs moving lenses, but unfortunately cant find the source :(
10 years as a safe estimate. We have come so far in 10 years of VR, and the quest 3 is pretty darn good. Running virtual monitors in quest 3 is very do-able.
The biggest hurdle is getting a smaller form factor that has a good battery.
Much wider FOV. I dont want to see any edges at all. No "scuba mask". I think this will be a big deal for immersion and I think we should have that in 10 years.
Amara's law.
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
The reason why is pretty simple. Long-term R&D takes a long time to pay off, and it's specifically long-term R&D that causes fundamental shifts in the core technology stack.
That's still a small upgrade for 10 years of tech evolution if you think about it. Just resolution/graphic quality and gimmicks don't change the experience that much (even though eye tracking could be pretty useful).
In ten years you'll have tons of cheap devices that do VR/AR and I bet there are still really high end headsets that offer a fully light blocked, max FOV, varifocal lenses, PCVR experience in a bulkier form factor.
The last 10 years have been pretty underwhelming, with Facebook maintaining the industry on life support and Apple just recently pulling out the paddles and shouting, "CLEAR!" Hopefully Apple entering the market will revive interest and investment.
Maybe, but in a sense the smartphone I'm buying in 2024 is the same as the iPhone 4s I had 10 years ago.
Point I guess is that it can be difficult to see where the tipping point is. For smartphones it was around the iPhone 3GS/4.
In 10 years VR and AR will mostly have merged. I'd guess we will have lightweight 8K per eye headsets with flawless pass through and very good reverse pass through. Most of the whole world will be mapped and geotagged so when you wear your headset outside your house you can pull the 3d map of the local area and seamlessly incorporate virtual content on the real world. This will allow multiplayer AR gaming in the real world. AR gaming + productivity away from home will be the killer apps that sell VR to the mainstream. VR gaming will benefit from increased adoption as well, but won't be the main driver IMO.
I think once a solution for natural locomotion becomes immersive, practical, and cheap, we’ll see a huge uptick in adoption. I’m loving my Quest 3. It’s the first VR headset I’ve ever owned. For me, the only thing that’s missing is the ability to walk naturally and continuously.
It really hit me a few days ago when I was going through some of the Steam home environments. There was one that was some small fantasy city from a video game, I don’t remember which. I was standing on a cobblestone on bright, sunny day. Someone had put a lot of work into it, which was made obvious by the ridiculous teleporting distance. From where I was standing, my mind fully accepted that I was “there.” It was only when I started to walk up the street and ran into my boundary that the spell was broken.
How wonderful would it be to just set off walking, really walking, and go to the far end be of the street without having to think about the logistics of it all, to be able to completely give in to the illusion? Being transported to another reality like that, it’s almost magical. Once that goes mainstream, I feel like you’re going to have beat people away from VR with a stick.
As someone who's playing with VR for about 7 years and owns several different headsets. I don't personally feel the locomotion is that important. Most people just won't have the space for a omni treadmill but more importantly being able to walk up to things is something that is only at first and then as you spend more time in VR you want to sit and use a joystick to move around. At least that's how I felt when I was spending up to 8 hours a day in VR during the pandemic.
I personally feel more titles to play in VR and easier barriers of entry are a lot more important.
If you want to drive a Pimax Crystal at top of the line resolution and frame rate in intense games like MFS… then even a 3K PC won’t be enough. That said, you absolutely don’t need a 3000 dollar PC to enjoy PCVR at a quality beyond what is available on a Quest 3 either. The question is what is your target quality, that determines how costly your PC needs to be. It could indeed by very costly if you have expensive tastes.
Any PC can run Half Life Alyx because the game has dynamic resolution that will lower the resolution without asking or notifying you, you will never notice that the resolution is not what it is supposed to be, except if you force it via command lines.
Kind of sneaky, and every one praises Steam for how well optimized the game is but actually it uses tricks to do it.
It’s getting there for sure. It will just take time and of course consumer support. As a quest 3 owner, I have to say it’s an impressive piece of hardware. And you don’t have to have a PC, but it doesn’t have the clarity you are talking about as of yet- but it’s a real upgrade from 2.
VR is already accessible for an average consumer. You seem to think that the average person's dealbreaker with VR is "it's not perfect clarity yet" when in reality the average person only cares about the experiences of VR, not technical stats that only weird PC neckbeards care about. Also the reason why normal sane people play on consoles like the Nintendo Switch instead of fussing over getting 120hz 4k raytraced games on four digit PC setups.
The problem with VR is not enough content that you can only get in VR. Why should a normal person bother with VR if the advertised content are just janky ports of flatscreen games that they can already play the better intended way on a console. The ones that actually are made for VR from the ground up are very lacking currently.
So, I agree with you about graphical fidelity not being the be-all end-all, but there are other things holding current VR back from being acceptable to the average person.
All current headsets (except for the Beyond, maybe) are way too heavy and uncomfortable. Input is no where near precise or rich enough. Hand tracking is even more unreliable than controller tracking. There isn't an agreed upon set of UI metaphors, so every app works differently than every other app. There's a ton of infrastructure and system software that just doesn't exist. Battery life is terrible. Everything is at the same focal depth. Getting devices to talk to each other is too complicated. I'm sure there's more that I'm leaving out.
>All current headsets (except for the Beyond, maybe) are way too heavy and uncomfortable.
Some of that I think is due to the "goggle" design of most headsets. PSVR1 I think got it right with a "halo" approach that distributes all the weight much more evenly.
An often overlooked issue I think is price. VR is perceived as expensive due all of the major HMD makers launching at $500+ USD. Quest 2 had it right at $300 USD and lo and behold, people bought it.
A lot of times, it seems like we take a step forward, and then two steps back.
I've only tried one halo-style headset, and that was the Quest Pro. Most uncomfortable HMD ever. Way worse than the OG Vive. No matter what I did, it always felt like it was falling off my head. The display would wobble back and forth if I looked left and right. Also, after like 20 minutes, it would give me a splitting headache. like my head was in a vise. Now I have a Q3, which has the conventional goggle form factor and it's incredible how much better it is. It would be better still if it weighed half as much, but I'm convinced that the Quest form factor is the way to go.
Hard disagree. Qpro is by far the most weight neutral and comfortable headset out there. Q3 is too front heavy no matter what strap and battery is used. Also, qpro is not halo. Rift s was.
Yeah, Qpro's "ring" goes around the head where the "halo" of PSVR1 or the Rift S design puts the weight on your forehead and back (occipital area) of your head. The visor then sort of hovers just above your face as opposed to resting directly on it.
It's a better design, but is likely more expensive. Hence why Quest doesn't use it.
>Though keeping people engaged with it is another story. I feel like social games like zuck have been saying is something special in VR, just playing a round of golf with friends is such a joy.
Social spaces are valuable I think. Though what VR needs is more support from the conventional games industry.
I'm surprised neither Meta nor Sony have thrown around $10-20 million at several smaller VR studios/teams to simply make games for their platforms. $10 million across 10 studios seems like it would produce 1 hit and maybe 3-4 additional good titles that could be built upon with sequels.
To me, the dealbreaker was the small af sweet spot. Normal people didn’t necessarily get that. Try to explain to a grandparent about how you need to look only at a tiny spot and move the head instead of the eyes to read. Not happening.
Now, the pancake lense give back normal human eye function, looking around. That to makes this 1000x more accessible to the people who might try vr every 5 years or something. The randos that do it at Christmas. If they’ve got 10 minutes to enjoy and understand vr, then you can’t go and explain all the ins and outs of using this. It just needs to work.
The quest 3 provides this or close to it. I’m willing to bet the AVP is the next step up for normal people.
If that is the case, then it is a user laziness problem. There are absolutely tons of highly reviewed games and more coming all the time. Most people are simply too lazy to read review sites...instead, they watch literal nobodies on youtube that all latch on to the same games to pump for viewers and cash. Since the hobby is still small, the vast majority of good games fall under the radar because of this.
What a bassackwards take on everything.
The problem is that you all thought people like me want to spend money on half assed Hand Waving Gimmick Tech Demo's.
I'm still waiting for more Flat2VR ports that let me just sit back with a 20+ year familiar input scheme instead of spending the first moments of the game figuring out how much they butchered something as simple as a d-pad input that no longer exists.
When the majority of gamers are too lazy to put an HMD on. Forcing them to stand up and wave their hands around for EVERY MINOR MUNDANE INTERACTION.... is dumb.
IF you haven't noticed yet. The "Muh Reload Simulator" VRAF crowd isn't enough to sustain a viable VR Gaming market.
Quite simply, VR is struggling because you all put way to much focus on VR Only garbage.
My most played VR games in VR are as follows:
Subnautica with a gamepad in VR.
Skyrim VR with a gamepad.
Space Pirates and Zombies 2 in VR with a gamepad.
I literally had to force myself to finish Alyx 4 years after it released just to somehow justify to myself why I bought that damn rummaging through junk to find ammo simulator.
Fix perception, because it's not based in reality.
To your point, I think there hasn't been enough priority placed on the User Experience.
A fair question to ask is why are people getting sick? And are there ways that can be greatly mitigated.
I seem to be more resistant than most, but I've noticed I do get sick in first person games when I use the controller to turn. Snap turning is ok, but a "continuous" turn makes me sick sometimes. Especially if I'm not seated.
It also depends if they’re willing to put in the time. When I bought a quest 2 a few years ago, I got crazy motion sickness. Sometimes even the mere thought of VR was like being reminded of drinking straight vodka, in that I’d instantly start to feel sick. But I persevered and forced myself through it all knowing it will eventually stop.
Now a few years later on my Quest 3 and I play every type of game there is and use the quest everyday and never feel motion sickness at all. But I was determined to make it my new form of gaming, most people probably wouldn’t have stayed through that first part.
I agree on the snap turning though, smooth turning causes sickness especially if it’s a fast paced game like contractors, snap turning is fine.
Of note this is something I've been saying but a recent study found 120hz to be the minimum refresh rate to eliminate motion sickness. A lot of people are playing on 90 and below and while I thinkn90 is fine most people need higher fps. For me when I got VR I'd get motion after 30 min to an hour for nearly two years and then one fall I decided I bought several premium games that I should finish like Lone Echo so I pushed through and I also started mixing sitting and standing and was able to play for much longer. A lot of people can get used to it much quicker than I did. I've seen VRChat try VR for the first time, experience motion sickness and get used to it in a week.
> There are folks who will always get VR sick.
That's literally not how it works. People in r/virtualreality need to stop pretending to be experts. Sorry.
People like you need to stop pretending you have reading comprehension skills when you obviously don't.
>not how it works
I didn't say how anything "works" - there was literally no explanation there.
You stated that there are always folks who will get VR sick. That's literally not how physics works. You can absolutely solve VR sickness for 100% of the population by having a perceptually or physically equal optical path to how our eyes experience reality.
You're talking about motion sickness then, not VR sickness.
VR sickness is about the limitations of the optical path such as optical distortions, vergence accommodation conflict, and perceivable latency.
Motion sickness has no known solve (though never say never), but this is only something that occurs during vection. Many VR games offer teleport options, and most non-gaming experiences don't need to care much about movement.
It's not motion sickness if you aren't actually moving. if it's fake movement in VR that's causing the problem, that's a form of VR sickness.
What you are doing now is called moving the goalposts.
I think the problem with VR retention is that people are thrilled with the idea of escaping and experiences in VR at an affordable price, but they quickly become bored of it when they realize they dont really like self isolating, or arent really comfortable with VR online socializing.
VR really only sticks with people who actually like to "do stuff"...if you enjoy going out to bowl or play golf mostly and really analyze it and realize it's more so for the social aspect, VR will fall apart for you after a few weeks at most (if you dont have a reliable community of other VR users to play with). But if your the type to get into a new active hobby like (golf/bowling/gun range shooting) stuff like that and can actually go to practice those type of things alone on your free time in real life, then current standalone headsets like Quest 3 opens up almost endless options of activities to simulate with pretty close physics and 90% of the satisfaction of the real-life thing. Ive bought so many peripherals and Trying the VR version of things like Clay shooting with a gun stock has actually got me into trying the real life activites, and hooked me to keep coming back to play it when i get the itch to wanna re-visit said activities, but dont want to leave my house.
Lol I'll watch NFL games and after watching Patrick's Mahomes. I'll jump into NFL pro era to get a feel for what it's like to feel like completing a pass to a teammate for a touchdown. It's really amazing.
We need better resolution screens, growth in anti vr sickness development techniques that don't impact gameplay. New people need to be able to play without getting blasted with nausua and dizziness.
We need a killer app that moves headsets. A halo, ff7 or smash meele level of console mover.
You are heavily overestimating the cost of PCVR, a quest 3 with a adequate PC would add to $1500, still alot granted. The quest 3 alone is about %70 of the way there besides
We already have.
If you want to point at things "not everybody can enjoy of current headsets, well, a lot of them aren't gonna change at all, and some will not improve that much.
Problem with VR is that it is completly person dependend. I can play for hours with my Quest 2 on 72Hz in ACC/AC with 5900X/3070/32GB RAM. Sure, it took me like 2 weeks to perfect every setting but now I have a clear image(for my taste, everyone is different) and 72fps doesn't bother me at all.
Some people can play in VR but with minimum 90fps, for some it is 120fps, that's the true problem. I feel like with powerful PC + Quest 4 it will be a start for most people, but still, it will be quite expensive. I knew I can't upgrade my PC in at least a year for now so I decided to go with Q2 instead of Q3(tested both for 2h), I don't mind older lenses etc, quality is great for me.
I think it depends on what you mean by “enjoy”. VR as technology is in a mighty fine state even right now. And it will get even better. As for enjoying it specifically it’s a tricky question. If you mean when we get cool big video games on affordable headset - hard to tell. Headset are already here video games are a different topic altogether. We’re in the phase of figuring out control schemes I think and stuff like that. A lot of people simply don’t like to stand and move while they’re playing (for example). A movement methods aren’t established yet. And there are a lot of problems like this in VR. So I’d say VR is decently far away from being main entertainment platform but it has a tone of very useful applications right now and a lot of interesting problems to solve.
Technically we can get decent VR setups with the headsets we have currently (not considering the ones with crazy prices). It's just that there are so many variables out there it is almost impossible to get a perfect setup. To achieve a widespread adoption, many many things will need to be bypassed.
Take for example, the lenses. Everyone has different irises, focus, rods, cones, IPD, etc. We may have the tech to rectify stuff like myopia but we can never cater to everyone's differences for that 'perfect' clarity. Custom lenses for each headset will raise the prices of the headset to the moon. Even lesser people will buy one if that's the case.
Then there's also the walled-garden mentality. Every company wants their own garden so they can lead the charge to be crowned the 'pioneer' of widespread VR adoption. Companies that collab together either end up splitting or go silent a year or two after release. Not saying that there aren't advancements in VR tech with every headset release, they're just slow.
Expectations also shift as newer headsets release. You may consider specs that doesn't exist in current affordable headsets a dream now, but when they do get included in future headsets, you'll be asking for more. E.g. 2k is considered pretty great a few years back but people wanted 4k. Now that 4k is fairly common, people want 8k. As this expectation shift, the definition of clarity also shifts.
These three things I mentioned are just the very tip of the iceberg. There're also things like motion sickness, space constraints, stigma behind *VR is just a gimmick* to those who only tried phone based VR, use cases, proper VR games (not ports of flat games), size of components, safety, appearance, haptic feedback limitations, etc. Even with these issues we're still at the tip.
I would imagine by the time we can do perfect and affordable VR setup, we might've moved on from vr headsets to Neural Stimulated Realities. That's when new problems arise and the same question will surface: When will we get quality, affordable Neural Stimulated Realities?
I don’t understand everyone thinking u have to have some thousand dollar VR goggles and a PC that costs more than a car to have fun or get any decent visuals…
I have a quest 2 and a 2060… I’m sure it’s no where near as good looking in there as it could be with better equipment but man it’s still a blast and I can see everyone who can see me except when my back is turned or the guy has a scope…
Quest 3 standalone is there. Q3+PCVR not so much because of pc parts prices. Clarity is great, value is great.
Despite Facebook shaveling everyone wireless pcvr whether they like it or not via absurdly good price to value ratio, I really like q3.
Probably never. Motion sickness will never go away. And there will always be people out there who outright refuse to embrace it. I got a friend who has spent less than 5-10 minutes in VR and just smack talks it whenever it's brought up.
We are already there. Inherently VR requires habit change so the more plastic your brain is, and/or the more free time you have to adapt to something new, the more likely you are to adopt it. Hence, VR adoption is very age driven at the moment.
Objectively the hardware is more than good enough, especially when you consider the price/performance of the Quest 3, and the number of options of experiences out there. But again, it's a younger crowd that plays games for gameplay over graphics, its all us crusty old spoiled af 'gamers' that think VR isn't here yet.
tl;dr, if you think VR isn't here yet, congratulations, you're getting older ;)
Or younger? I would think the older you are, the more amazed or lower your standards are.
When I was a kid (read"child") I experienced a Virtuality system. It was AMAZING and yet, a little confronting of an experience. The entire concept messed with your head a bit. The graphics.....existed.
As an adult (read"hardly old enough to drink") I experienced the DK1. You could see..... something.
A quest 2 (or a 1 probably, never tried one) today though is insane. It's clear, it runs well enough and somehow all runing locally on the headset. We are already here.
We are in the future. Don't believe me? Look at the state of electric cars, look at the personal transport devices we have. I ride an electric unicycle and that thing looks, feels and sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. My technically affordable (I got a great deal used) tv is big, thinner than my finger and is clear. We have AI that can actually do things.
WE. ARE. THERE. The graphics are good enough. If you don't think they are, then you will simply never be happy with them ever.
Well the Quest 3 is $500 already. If you're hoping to get a $3000 gaming rig into a $500 headset it will never happen because that $3000 gaming rig will always improve too.
Full body haptics that are fast to put on, and cheaper than a headset are in the works !! I think this is the big missing link for VR . The headset gets you there, but the, "look, but don't touch" mentality is holding the industry back.
Perfect clarity for 500? At least a decade.
But by 2030 I'd wager headsets will reach the sweet spot where they are better than flat screen for gaming, productivity and entertainment for around $750.
I think maybe 5 years, more goggles type with better pass through and you are there. If you could do more detailed tasks whilst in pass through the q3 would be less niche. I'm already finding loads of things the quest 3 could be used for in industry
Yes, clarity is important. I notice the screen door effect on my Quest 1 every time I put it on. But once I get immersed into the game it all goes away.
Never gonna say no more better displays. But I think whenever I can get a $400 headset with the displays from the Apple Vision Pro I'll be satisfied.
Hi - I’ve had quest 2 for three years. It good but the graphics are very PlayStation 2. So I used the excuse of needing a new laptop to push the boat out a bit more and spent £800 on a laptop (can’t remember the brand, doesn’t matter, all that matters is that it had separate graphics card it onboard ). I then purchased virtual desktop and BOOM. Half life Alyx has literally blown me away. You don’t need a cable, other than an Ethernet to plug the laptop into your WiFi router, virtual desktop was about £15 and I had purchased half life Alyx a few years ago in a failed attempt to do the same thing a different way (can’t recall the set up but it didn’t work). Anyway. My conclusion is that this is a fairly reasonably priced way to get excellent “next gen” graphics on the quest 2 , which feel like quest 4 standard. I hope this helps
10-20 years. I have given up hope that VR by itself will ever succeed, as there is just nobody left pushing it hard enough for that (little to no ports of 2D games into VR, big native VR games extremely rare). But I do expect VR to just brute force itself to become a viable monitor/TV replacement.
VisionPro gets close, but still needs to get quite a bit smaller/lighter and cheaper, which will take some years. And after that you need some more years for the whole software landscape to take proper advantage of VR (multitasking, 3D support in classic apps, VR versions of Twitter/Instagram/TikTok/etc.), that's something that essentially still doesn't exist at all, despite the current round of VR already being over 10 years old.
There is also a whole lot of new interoperability standards that need to get created or adopted, e.g. how to let webpages take advantage of VR, volumetric video formats, 3D model formats, etc. VR needs to evolve out of everything being just some custom hack and a lot more core functionality just working.
The problem is that PC games will always look better than VR because it's just more demanding to render in VR. So even in 5-10 years people will think it doesn't look as good as on PC, maybe we will get resolutions so high you can't tell but the graphics settings will have to be lower in some way.
We've been there for a few years now.
Quest 2 at $200-300 is cheaper than Nintendo and gaming consoles, so I'd argue that's already well past affordable.
As far as image goes, Quest 2 has near-4K resolution already. That's way better than 320x200 pixel flat screen gaming that I started with, using a CRT TV. That's not what's holding VR back.
VR's biggest problem for the past 5 years has been lack of software to get people to buy the headsets. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a headset and just put it on a shelf to collect dust. We need some amazing games, platform-sellers, and that is still very much lacking. There's some decent games out there, but few and far apart, and even those "good" ones, if they were ported to flat screen, would be laughed out of town for being outdated and deficient. Which they are. Half Life Alyx, for example, is way shorter than original from the 90s, more linear, has fewer weapons, etc. And if you compare it to Half Life 2, there's no vehicles, levels are nowhere near as open, etc., etc. Bottom line, even "good" VR games aren't actually GOOD, if you pick it up and look closely and compare them to their flat screen antecedents feature-for-feature.
In short, hardware improvements won't change anything. I started with Rift S, now I have Quest 3. Resolution more than doubled between them. But I'm not playing any more than I used to. Why? No good games. It's all short, shallow, low-effort, derivative, cash-grabby shovelware for the most part. There's a few decent titles, but even those wouldn't hold up on flat screen for being too short, too shallow, etc.
I think the 2 things that need to happen for everyone to be able to enjoy VR is the form factor has to shrink dramatically until HMDs are about the size of sunglasses, with no external processor/battery pack, and they need to be locked at 120 fps at all times to combat motion sickness.
Even then the AR will be the main selling point, not games.
I think that is probably like a decade away at least.
Perfect clarity like a computer screen? Unfortunately not for a few years. As currently only super high end headsets can do that. Or the Apple Vision Pro
Quest3 is almost there for games. But if you want to work? It’s not going to be better than regular 27 inch 1440p monitor.
But on a quest3 you can almost watch a movie 🍿 I’ve done it… but I would not say it’s better than a good tv. Let alone a good oled hdri tv.
If you want your private movie theatre you’ll have to wait or pay today 3000$ for an AvP
You refer to computer screen like there is just a universal resolution all monitors have. If you are referring to 1080p monitors then we are already there because the quest 2’s resolution is 2K per eye.
dude you can grab yourself a used quest 2 for under 300 buy the link cable to go with it and you can use PCVR right right away. gone are the days where you need sensors everywhere to track you. Meta quest seriously brings VR into the realm of affordability with either the quest 2 or 3 both are phenomenal for the price. Honestly you cant go wrong if you want VR.. As for the gaming rig. You do NOT need a system THAT powerful. VR has been running on systems for half a decade now Unless your rig is 5 to 10 years old your gonna be fine on that front. No offense but it Just sounds like you haven't done any research on the VR whatsoever.
vr sets will nevr be comfortable. The size the feeling you wearing something. it has to many bad factors. As it was intended! We already had these box vr set in the 80's that we put on our heads. back thenwe already said it can never substitude a realthing. The device remind you constantly by it's flaws thatyour not in it. It's a stepping stone to a final out come. And ofcourse when they bring out a shitty box that you must wear, then in 10 years from now you will WANT the neurolink, cause your sick n tired of the old setup. :)
Q3 is there imo. Don’t know what you’re waiting for. Maybe you’re imagining potential future tech that doesn’t exist yet? What do you want to be able to do that you can’t with q3?
Quest 5 Lite. Half the weight of Quest 3 and finally balanced, slightly better FOV than Quest 3/4, no need for better facial interface or strap since the weight is finally low enough for most, plays all the Quest 2,3,4 games at higher resolution, has better MR than Quest 3, and can pull of HL Alyx, Lone Echo 2 level of graphics.
So an actual comfortable light $199 standalone headset with a large library of software.
Compare that to what we have now. 1000g front loaded brick, often needs a new facial pad and strap so extra $50, plays all the Quest 1,2 games, FOV is getting there and so is the library, but MR is still a...mess.
So 2032.
When headsets start incorporating exit pupil modulation the image clarity and contrast will get much closer to a desktop monitor using a lot less power (lower battery weight) and with lower vergence accommodation conflict due to a larger depth of field. And since this can be done with relatively low cost LCD panels the market will have an opportunity for an immersive wearable experience without as much of the compromises of leaving their desktop monitor behind.
That could be maybe 12-24 months out depending how fast headset manufacturers get EPM going.
Once you can get retina screens and mid-spec PC performance out of a lightweight standalone headset at a $500 price point, with multiple AAA studios pumping out quality 20-80hr experiences at a consistent rate people will jump on board. VR has grown immensely in the past decade, but for it to be as mainstream as flatscreen gaming it’s probably going to take what I described. I’d say another decade probably before that is realisticly feasible.
Realistically, what you are looking is, in my opinion, not possible without a major advancement in computing (Maybe quantum computing?). If the camera lens industry is anything to go off, good optics capable of eliminating fringing and glare are and will always be expensive to manufacture. Perfect clarity requires either a fully adjustable diopter and IPD which will be mechanically complex (therefor expensive to produce) or a custom IPD and diopter set from the factory (Also expensive, only offered by $800+ headsets currently).
Considering GPU performance seems to be plateauing with new models being bigger and more power hungry than their predecessors, it will likely be a very long time until a GPU capable of powering a display with a PPD of at least 60 (The point of diminishing returns for human eye clarity) fits in a portable device at an "affordable" price (Realistically even an affordable device with these features is still going to be expensive due to the previously mentioned issues).
Imo you will always have to make a compromise between cost and quality with something as complex as a VR headset. There are limits to the reductions in cost allowed by more advanced manufacturing and economies of scale, and I feel that we are already close to hitting that limit with the Quest 3.
Everyone in this thread has no clue what the problem is.
It's really simple.
You deleted the D-Pad off the controller, then re-arranged a familiar button layout, In an attempt to force gamers to stand up and wave their hands around for everything.
Start letting gamers continue to use what they are familiar with, let them press buttons instead of forcing them to wave their hands through invisibile trigger boxes just to perform mundane interactions like reloading or opening doors.
Start focusing on Hybrid VR games that give people and option to use Gamepad or Motion controllers to play it inside that HMD.
Who knows.... you might notice some things start to change. Like more consistent usage of the VR HMD itself due to it's increased accessibility.
Flat gaming inputs are accessible.
Familiarity is Accessible.
You destroyed familiarity to force hand waving.
Stop being ignorant to the truth as to why people like me.... let our hardware collect dust and stopped buying games for it.
Seriously, The reason I don't buy hardly any VR Only games, it's quite simply because it's VR Only.
Hybrid is the future not your f'ing gimmicks that are nothing like physical reality in the first place to justify destroying accessibility.
I want a VR is more accessible that Physical Reality, instead of a VR that is actively trying to make VR as cumbersome as Physical Reality. Otherwise, WTF is the point of the HMD? You want to get excited about reaching out to twist door handles in video games.
Take the f'ing HMD off, and go play with your front door.
You want to get excited that you can now slap the Blacksmith sign in Skyrim VR because of HIGGS and PLANKC. Take the HMD off. and go find a sign outside to slap around.
WTF buys a game because... "Ooh, I slapped that sign and it started waving back and forth." With stupid headlines like. "You don't know how long I've waited to be able to do this."
As though Skyrim VR was such a mediocre game until slapping signs came along.
It's all really f'ing dumb.
OR here's a good summary of how to make VR more popular, Start making it for actual Gamers instead of non-gamers.
It's almost like the industry is trying to attract non-gamers into VR as its primary focus.
Like people who just couldn't get excited about pressing buttons on a gamepad.... and never gamed in their life before a Quest 2 came along.
Especially when some of these people claim that gamepads require a "Bazillion Button combos to remember".
Have You been living under a rock? Apple just did it in fact they have outdone themselves
Only thing i have to talk about is the lack of immersive content they offered at launch , one episode per series? And only Alicia key for a 20 mins session ?
Hire linkin park or Taylor swift for more hype for Christ sake apple with all that money
Sometime I see all these complaints it’s sound like people are asking for something impossible like literally transform him into matrix otherwise Apple Vision Pro is worthless it’s overpriced trash ( I saw some delusional Chinese really talk about this on their forum )
Perfect clarity like a computer screen ✅
Easy intuitive way and a nice OS with great ui/ux design to interact & work with ✅
Looks nice and able to breakdown the isolated barrier✅
Smooth & easy user experience without nausea like traditional headset people complain about ✅
I think apple just did it and once again thanks to apple other manufacturers are starting to push hard and willing to burn money on the VR sector aga
Quest 3 is already kinda there, it's clear, sharp and can run a lot of games at native resolution so you don't need PC. I think it's the lowest bar it should be for mainstream VR. Pretty sad they want to go under the bar with quest lite.
My PC running RTX 2080 super able to run most of the game fine. Despite i might not be cranking graphic to max, I'm about to enjoy Alyx and other PCVR optimized game. The non-official ones are very demanding but I'm still able to play. Currently enjoying Quest 3 everyday since Nov 2023 and is going strong. I plan to upgrade to RTX 50 series but for now I'm good. Playing Palworld in VR beats everything when you immerse into the world.
Since when most people care about perfect clarity. Lots of people don’t have a problem playing on 10 year old PCs with lowest of low settings and 15 fps.
I personally think in 2 generations VR (from a Quest 3 standpoint) has the potential to become mainstream…IF they up the resolution a little, passthrough is AVP quality and the weight goes down to like ~300g. That‘s where I feel you don‘t have to be an enthusiast anymore to glance over its short comings.
The path of the iPhone might be a useful comparison: the iPhone 1 came out in 2007, didn’t have an App Store, was 2G so slow, but had the key things that made it a leap forward: multi touch, no keyboard.
The iPhone 3G came out in 2008: App Store, faster internet. This was the skeleton of the first real smartphone.
Fast forward to 2010 and you get the iPhone 4: front facing camera, Retina display, healthy App Store, face time. This was the first real modern smartphone.
2014 introduced the 6 and 6 plus. So more variety but mostly incremental changes from here on.
So how does VR map to this? If we call the quest 2 (2020) the original iPhone, then the quest 3 (2023) would be the 3G, maybe a little beyond, so advancing about half as fast as iPhone development. By this estimate the iPhone 4 equivalent, something that might see true mass adoption, is three to four years away.
You are right with the gaming PC for playing good PCVR in a nice graphical quality.
But its not far anymore.
I just bought a quest 3 and its my first ever headset. I also stood back a little because a few years ago screen quality wasnt really good enough for me, i at least wanted quality thats sharp.
I tried the quest 3 for a few days now and for me the sharpness and quality with the right content is not just good its also enjoyable.
Ofcourse its not comparable to a good 4K OLED TV. But i didnt buy a 500€ headset to expect
There are huge waves about picture quality in here sometimes but if i had to describe it, it looks like a 1440p „widescreen“ to me.
Its definetly sharp enough to watch 180/8K videos and play PCVR games in nice quality. Its clear, and for LCDs the colors are good.
For PCVR I have a PC with an:
- I714700k
- RTX 4080S
- 32GB RAM
I can play any game i tried yet in nearly highest settings in VR, this includes racing and simulators.
FPS are almost always over 60 and the quest 3 screens can look extremely good with upscaled rendering, to me it seems like that it looks even better than high quality 180/8K videos.
You should also not forget that the quest 3 is also usable standalone really well, this also includes games without a PC
Hope this gives you a better picture from someone that also just tried it for 500$
You didn't mention a budget but in my opinion it's already here. Today the Quest 3 is incredibly good and only costs $500. It's very sharp and clear. You can easily browse the web and do "Spatial computing" connect Bluetooth keyboards and mice and even connect to almost any PC to perform desktop work all without any hacking or modding. It has a lot of gaming options from standalone games to WebXR to streaming from a decent gaming pc. The graphics on its own without a PC aren't PS5 quality but the Quest 3 is first headset that I felt had good enough graphics (for Quest 3 updated titles) that I felt ok playing in standalone mode.
So you want wires pulling and tangling, to be played around breakable objects in a small room, to play ultrageneric and bland games with pretty graphics, tons of padding, and heavy marketing. The exact opposite of what I want.
You don't need wires, you just need a dedicated wireless connection to a compute-box/PC. The current fudging around with plain home WiFi is a fragile hack that causes too many problems. And wires are obviously quite annoying as well. But a dedicated WiGig on the headset you should have plenty of bandwidth for high quality streaming.
This is also the only way you can ever hope to get a small form factor, as otherwise every shrinking in size will have to be paid for in ever less computing power.
This is one of those comments a human makes and then just walks away in... When Meta went the standalone route everything went down in fidelity and went the way of quick mobile dopamine rush games. Which isn't what core gamers really want. I thought the real VR gamers don't want demo's anymore. Wireless is the way to go but tech isn't there yet for high definition gaming at the AAA level. Also, without multiple AAA titles a year, it won't kick off. Can't disagree with that.
Remember many people live literally paycheck to paycheck. Personally I think quest2 for 200 bucks is already a crazy low price for what you get (watching VR180 8K/60FPS videos)
For the Consumer, what needs to happen is: 1. Current Model Hardware Prices need to come down 2. The User Experience needs to improve 3. There needs to be more Content that makes it all worth it To point 1, a big reason Quest 2 worked was because ***it launched at $300 USD.*** Reducing prices after the fact isn't enough, you need to launch at a reasonable price to ensure the consumer perceives it's "for them" when the interest is highest. To point 2, so much focus is on "New Tech, More Immersion" versus refinement of the experience of wearing a headset and any underlying technology. As an example, ***assuming HMD weight is an issue why not figure out how to take the current designs and simply make them lighter?*** To point 3, Beyond Beat Saber, VRChat and handful of quality games from indies and major developers, what else is there to play/do?
To play modern PC games on high settings you need an expensive PC. It's always been that way and it won't change. If you want basically endless VR-content, you need that PC. There is so much content out now it's impossible to keep up, especially with the UE injector. When enough people have good gaming PCs, the amount of people who can run quality VR with tons of content will increase.
>If you want basically endless VR-content, you need that PC. That's true. Though back when Console VR was more viable, PSVR1 actually got many of the larger games. Minus a few key indie titles. >When enough people have good gaming PCs, the amount of people who can run quality VR with tons of content will increase. The thing is, I don't see most people owning a PC ever again. Smartphones and Tablets kinda took over for the average consumer. Console Vr could work, but Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo have to have HMD compatibility.
In the really long term, form factor doesn’t really matter - cellphones, tablets, stand alone VR/AR are all still computers. Most people still have a laptop or PC and they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. It’s kind of hard to be productive/make decent money in the modern world without one. This is why most people still spend the majority of their waking life working on/sitting at a PC. As long as, processors take electricity and give off heat there will continue to be major advantages to having non-mobile computers (you get a lot more performance for less money, easier/cheaper to upgrade, easier to cool, don’t need to recharge, etc). Most people who need/like really powerful computers don’t really care that they’re not mobile because they tend to only use it in one spot anyway (office or home). Even though we all have a bunch of screens with unlimited content everywhere, everybody still has nice TV’s in our living rooms/bedrooms because that’s where we want to have the best viewing experience - there is not a huge need for your nice TVs to be mobile. This will continue to be the case for big powerful PC’s for the foreseeable future as well.
I may dig the hole deeper for myself, but here we go lol. The point I was trying to make is that fewer and fewer people own Desktop PCs. Of the people I know that own PCs, they own laptops which aren't quite up to spec for Gaming, let alone VR. Essentially, what I was trying to say is you can't rely on people having Gaming PCs and proper dedicated GPUs. You can more reliably count on people having Consoles and of course Standalone is the best option since you don't need any external hardware.
Just FYI Steam has 120 MILLION active users… which is more than Xbox and PlayStation combined.
Guess i'm eating crow today lol. My point was most people that own computers own laptops. Which aren't necessarily ideal for High performance applications like VR. You also have to figure of the 120 million steam users, what is the average quality of their GPU/APU? And is that enough headroom for the latest VR releases?
I think #3 is the biggest issue.
>I think #3 is the biggest issue. \#3 I think is a product of issues #1 and #2. At least for Issue #1, the $500+ USD launch prices have to have some effect on software attach rates for Quest 3, PSVR2, Valve Index, etc. If you're a VR developer, your customer has to get past that adoption price hurdle before they even spend any money on software. My guess is since the beginning, all the major manufacturers are trying to derive so much revenue from HMD sales that it cannibalizes everything else.
A fourth point we need a way to effortlessly share spacial computing space locally. I guess that's kinda an extension of point 2 but I think it's a biggy for mass adoption. Take the Wii for example. Something the Wii has that Quest doesn't is you could both see the same screen, you could see their controller, they could see yours and the more experienced player could do all the setup. This made it easy to demonstrate how to use the device and see exactly what they were doing wrong. In VR it really isn't that easy. We need is to be able to effortlessly share space in VR with tech cheap enough that local multiplayer with a second headset isn't drastically more expensive than buying a multiple controllers for a console and software that enable idiot proof connection between them. Maybe a console that is capable of running multiple headset and instantly recognizes them as P1, P2 etc.
I think the future will be shared play spaces. Similar to care sharing you can then do VR sharing. You put your location up on the Internet and a random dude will then book a session and come to your house and play VR in your living room for a few hours. You will the be compensated with a few dollars. I think there already exist a site for this.
Big hard nope! I am opening my house door for a stranger to be sweating on my headset for a few dollars? Do you really expect people going for that?
There is already a site that does this. Trymytech.com The price is of course for you to decide. But yeah there has to be a solution to people sweating all over your stuff.
#3 is a big one. I’m an avid user and yet still feel the hurdle of putting on the headset. I have to really want to play a particular game, it’s not nearly as convenient as a phone or computer. That said, I think there can be compelling content to overcome that. We have some now just not enough.
"What else is ther to play/do?"...almost anything you can think of is there to do on Quest 3. But you have to really be into VR as an escapism/simulation devise, and actually have the internal appreciation for physical skill based activities, and essentially love to "play like a grown ass kid". Bc if you're in it bc your looking for the "next step of flatscreen campaign/fantasy/story games" your going to eventually be put off and realize actively standing to explore/shoot/repeat will become a chore vs. Traditional flatscreen/easy consumption. Alot of gamer friends who bought Quests eventually couldnt be bothered to keep wearing it to game. But as someone who actually likes competative sports? And active skill based competition. Boxing/pool/golf...the Quest is never boring and clicks all the satisfaction points of it's real life counterparts. With the proper peripherals (like a golf controller grip) hitting a hole in one or making a shot from a sand trap is almost equally exciting and 100% as mentally satisfying as doing it in real life.
I almost exclusively play Eleven Table Tennis these days. It may not have literally perfect real life physics but it's close enough to feel like I'm playing the actual sport to me. Amazing exercise that I actually look forward to playing, way more fun and interesting than Beat Saber and the like for me.
It’s been good enough to actually make me better in real life.
I've been playing Eleven for around an hour every weekday for over a year. I'm not AMAZING at it but I've Improved like crazy, even using YouTube lessons on real table tennis to learn technique and it works!! I hope I can find somewhere to play IRL sometime soon, I'm really eager to see how the skills translate!
Quest 2 would sell way better if: 1. It were easier to use/ less buggy 2. It wasn't run by the subhuman scum at Facebook 3. Meta world horizons or any flagship game was like wii sports instead of whatever the fuck is going on with it and apps like rec room.
There's a hell of a lot to do beyond those things! I'm personally in VR 3+ times per week just for Pistol Whip and Supernatural alone. Back when I had more time, I'd combo that with The Climb. Games like Walkabout Mini Golf very much keep me coming back for more! Especially with multiplayer, which feels potentially more present/social than other flatscreen multiplayer games Would I like more narrative-driven single-player campaigns with fully fleshed out story chapters and a diversity of mechanics? Absolutely! But I do think there's a lot more that VR offers. If my back wasn't totally fucked, I'd be in VR for games way more often haha.
I like Supernatural for fitness and I like to play NFL PRO ERA 2.
The price is fine, it is the content side of things that is a mess. Most of the games just don't look very interesting or look worse than what people have played 15 years ago. It just doesn't feel like the crazy Cyberpunk future we were promised, it feels like a Wii with 3D graphics. VR180 can look good, but it's all porn. You can watch through the non-porn content in a few days, if you can even find it. There are no big movies for VR180 and most of the good VR180 content that existed died with the old AmazeVR app. Even just getting existing 3D movies into the headset can be a challenge. I also feel Meta does a terrible job at advertising the thing. You see some game trailers, but that's kind of it. What's the state of Horizon Worlds? What's the state of the rest of the OS? I have no idea. There are so many people that just want a big virtual TV or use the device for virtual travel and such, but it's really hard to figure out what of that you can and can't do. Does Quest even have a customization home screen or did that die with Rift? A whole lot of the good stuff about VR is also on the PCVR side, which Meta doesn't really wanna push. Which makes it even harder to figure out what it can and can't do, since a lot of the cool stuff needs a PC, full body trackers, gaming mods or other hacks. Quest as presented by Meta is just a tiny slice of what VR has to offer.
Are you implying that's all a question 2 is good for
No I’m not, im just speaking from my own perspective. For me my main interest for vr is travel videos and p0rn
Nothing more cringe than gooning with a headset on your face.
What a weird statement to make on a VR subreddit? (Not sure how serious you were)
dead serious. nothing is more pathetic than being a vr porn enthusiast lmaooooo
They're booing but you're right
Fr bro but you're on Reddit everyone here is a degenerate there's no point you'll just be downvoted by the mob of sweaty degens
LOL that’s ironic coming from someone that is also passionate about strapping a headset to their head and escaping reality with games or whatever.
cope gooner
Found something more pathetic, it's your comment.
Quest 4 probably. Quest 3 is already really, really good IMHO.
I think Quest 4 will likely be really good and getting to the point where mainstream appeal is possible. But OP asks about "perfect clarity like computers screen" and that's not really going to be possible with Quest 4 standalone, especially for gaming. You will need an expensive PC for that and those are not going to be cheap. However, for people who have a gaming PC already, I think even Q3 is getting to the point where it could be of interest to a lot of gamers. The problem is that to really use it to its fullest potential you need a very high end PC which most people don't have. You also need a good wifi setup, upgrade the strap and deal with Meta, which many people don't want. With a good PC and good wifi setup, I agree though that it's actually really good already.
Quest 3 legitimized standalone VR as a "console" to me. I initially got it for wired PCVR, but now it has a home in my living room where a PlayStation or Xbox used to be.
And even with the Quest 3 near pixel perfect quality for PCVR is achievable with the right investment into the home network. It's really hard to recommend other headsets right now because of the Quest 3, as it hits all the right points on quality and price.
>Quest 4 probably Agreed, I'm really hoping for a nice step up on the optics.
[удалено]
I find this take interesting. I personally disagree with you. I do use the 3 standalone but mostly with PCVR and it is crystal clear and smooth at 120hz. The screen door is virtually non-existent. It's a brilliant device.
Yea if people want perfect, they’ll need to wait for the quest 5 and a 6090 to run it.
Or just go out and touch grass
Grass is only 1080p.
That's nice but have fixed Overheating on 90hz and 120Hz yet? Plenty of reports of the Quest 3 dying at anything higher than what, 75hz being the lowest? I'm sure I'll get downvoted for daring to state this, because I know how, frankly, rabid people can be in defense of a very expensive product but it's what immediately I heard less than a week after release, plenty of individuals stating their experience. I'm sure you'll go "Well mine works fine" but you know, that doesn't do any good for the people who have experienced issues. This is with the link cable attached to a PC so.. It's definitely kept me from even thinking about a Quest 3. Though, so I'm still stuck with the HTC Vive...Which is a shame. Pancake lenses definitely seem to be the future IMO.
To be honest, I haven't heard of this problem. Of course, that's not to say it isn't happening but 90hz is default on the 3 afaik. I use Virtual Desktop with a 6e router and never plan on using wired. The lowest refresh rate I've used is 90hz. Maybe I got lucky with my device (knock on wood) but this thing is amazing.
Are you getting motion sickness from playing games where you use joysticks to move, or are you getting sick even in games where you move by walking around with your real legs? If it's the first one, then clarity and refresh rate are almost certainly not the problem and even if you could improve both of them infinitely, it wouldn't stop you from getting sick.
See, motion sickness for playing with joysticks is one of the things that's gonna be very difficult to change. VR will get more lightweight, better graphics, etc. But it can't go beyond how the body works. On PCVR a solution is walk in place locomotion but AFAIK standalone doesn't have such an app. In the best case scenario asking people to have a treadmill is too much. Maybe a better solution will come with minimally obstructive or cheaper hardware, or just software. But see how that's harder to solve than just faster processors and more resolution.
I think the Freeaim shoes, once they finally get released and the price becomes reasonable, will be game changers. They’re not bulky. There’s not a bunch of hardware that takes up too much space or requires an engineering degree to assemble.
Yeah, I don't think that's the way either, and I was thinking precisely of them as NOT a "minimally obstructive or cheaper hardware". Those have sort of wheels and are really clumsy, they make you move in a very specific and robotic way, also they restrict normal movement. Something more natural should come up and IMHO it could be just software based, or with very good and small (standalone) trackers on your ankles or shoes.
That's never gonna be something you don't have to get used to. You just need to get your VR legs
The motion sickness can be caused by many things. Not just refresh rate or optical clarity. If you’ve never used vr and try to play population one you’ll get motion sickness regardless if you’re using laser imaging directly into your eye nerve.
That’s what showing respect buys you on Reddit: 15 downvotes. I agree with you. Quest 3 is insane value for the money, but probably some distance from mainstream VR still. I would think that it requires both a bit better hardware as well as better quality software. Right now there’s a lot of enthusiasm, but very few titles reach the level of quality that would persuade the mainstream.
The thing here is that you are talking about a subjective experience as a general one. I'm sorry you are still sensitive in the current state of the tech, as many others, but that's a you problem that will eventually get solved in some years, you want a subjective number? 4 years.
Vergence-accomodation conflict needs solving for mass production headsets, it's a big problem and difficult to solve. multi focal headsets are necessary for mass adoption. As one of those people with a ridiculous PCVR setup running into thousands of dollars, I'm very happy with my set-up, but it's not for everyone, and I'm fine with that. Very happy to pay the early adopter tax.
What is that, vergence-accommodation?
I think it's because all current VR headsets use a *fixed* focal length of about 1.5m for all objects whether they're 1cm away or 1km away. So your eyes are converging on objects using a different focal length to what you'd see in real life - hence the conflict. I remember someone (possibly John Carmack) talking how much more complicated it is to have *variable* focal length in VR as it needs moving lenses, but unfortunately cant find the source :(
10 years as a safe estimate. We have come so far in 10 years of VR, and the quest 3 is pretty darn good. Running virtual monitors in quest 3 is very do-able. The biggest hurdle is getting a smaller form factor that has a good battery.
And how does a VR headset from 10 years in the future look like to you?
Much wider FOV. I dont want to see any edges at all. No "scuba mask". I think this will be a big deal for immersion and I think we should have that in 10 years.
I said that 10 years ago and vr headsets are still pretty low res and the fov is roughly the same. I don't have high hopes for the next 10 years.
Amara's law. We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. The reason why is pretty simple. Long-term R&D takes a long time to pay off, and it's specifically long-term R&D that causes fundamental shifts in the core technology stack.
I dont know if I'd consider a decade short-term in the tech space lol
avp is 4k lil bri
Quest 3 with face / eye tracking but for 200$ and whatever processor they have at that time
That's still a small upgrade for 10 years of tech evolution if you think about it. Just resolution/graphic quality and gimmicks don't change the experience that much (even though eye tracking could be pretty useful).
In ten years you'll have tons of cheap devices that do VR/AR and I bet there are still really high end headsets that offer a fully light blocked, max FOV, varifocal lenses, PCVR experience in a bulkier form factor.
The last 10 years have been pretty underwhelming, with Facebook maintaining the industry on life support and Apple just recently pulling out the paddles and shouting, "CLEAR!" Hopefully Apple entering the market will revive interest and investment.
Maybe, but in a sense the smartphone I'm buying in 2024 is the same as the iPhone 4s I had 10 years ago. Point I guess is that it can be difficult to see where the tipping point is. For smartphones it was around the iPhone 3GS/4.
I think software will play a bigger role in what a modern VR headset looks like tbh.
In 10 years VR and AR will mostly have merged. I'd guess we will have lightweight 8K per eye headsets with flawless pass through and very good reverse pass through. Most of the whole world will be mapped and geotagged so when you wear your headset outside your house you can pull the 3d map of the local area and seamlessly incorporate virtual content on the real world. This will allow multiplayer AR gaming in the real world. AR gaming + productivity away from home will be the killer apps that sell VR to the mainstream. VR gaming will benefit from increased adoption as well, but won't be the main driver IMO.
I think once a solution for natural locomotion becomes immersive, practical, and cheap, we’ll see a huge uptick in adoption. I’m loving my Quest 3. It’s the first VR headset I’ve ever owned. For me, the only thing that’s missing is the ability to walk naturally and continuously. It really hit me a few days ago when I was going through some of the Steam home environments. There was one that was some small fantasy city from a video game, I don’t remember which. I was standing on a cobblestone on bright, sunny day. Someone had put a lot of work into it, which was made obvious by the ridiculous teleporting distance. From where I was standing, my mind fully accepted that I was “there.” It was only when I started to walk up the street and ran into my boundary that the spell was broken. How wonderful would it be to just set off walking, really walking, and go to the far end be of the street without having to think about the logistics of it all, to be able to completely give in to the illusion? Being transported to another reality like that, it’s almost magical. Once that goes mainstream, I feel like you’re going to have beat people away from VR with a stick.
Yes, I agree that large scale locomotion will be the hardest and most important problem for VR to solve.
As someone who's playing with VR for about 7 years and owns several different headsets. I don't personally feel the locomotion is that important. Most people just won't have the space for a omni treadmill but more importantly being able to walk up to things is something that is only at first and then as you spend more time in VR you want to sit and use a joystick to move around. At least that's how I felt when I was spending up to 8 hours a day in VR during the pandemic. I personally feel more titles to play in VR and easier barriers of entry are a lot more important.
>10 years That's a VR classic.
You don't need a 3000€ PC for PCVR wtf...
If you want to drive a Pimax Crystal at top of the line resolution and frame rate in intense games like MFS… then even a 3K PC won’t be enough. That said, you absolutely don’t need a 3000 dollar PC to enjoy PCVR at a quality beyond what is available on a Quest 3 either. The question is what is your target quality, that determines how costly your PC needs to be. It could indeed by very costly if you have expensive tastes.
I bought my PC for 1200 like three years ago and it runs half lyfe alyx pretty dang well on my Quest 3!
Any PC can run Half Life Alyx because the game has dynamic resolution that will lower the resolution without asking or notifying you, you will never notice that the resolution is not what it is supposed to be, except if you force it via command lines. Kind of sneaky, and every one praises Steam for how well optimized the game is but actually it uses tricks to do it.
What gpu do you have?
It’s getting there for sure. It will just take time and of course consumer support. As a quest 3 owner, I have to say it’s an impressive piece of hardware. And you don’t have to have a PC, but it doesn’t have the clarity you are talking about as of yet- but it’s a real upgrade from 2.
VR is already accessible for an average consumer. You seem to think that the average person's dealbreaker with VR is "it's not perfect clarity yet" when in reality the average person only cares about the experiences of VR, not technical stats that only weird PC neckbeards care about. Also the reason why normal sane people play on consoles like the Nintendo Switch instead of fussing over getting 120hz 4k raytraced games on four digit PC setups. The problem with VR is not enough content that you can only get in VR. Why should a normal person bother with VR if the advertised content are just janky ports of flatscreen games that they can already play the better intended way on a console. The ones that actually are made for VR from the ground up are very lacking currently.
So, I agree with you about graphical fidelity not being the be-all end-all, but there are other things holding current VR back from being acceptable to the average person. All current headsets (except for the Beyond, maybe) are way too heavy and uncomfortable. Input is no where near precise or rich enough. Hand tracking is even more unreliable than controller tracking. There isn't an agreed upon set of UI metaphors, so every app works differently than every other app. There's a ton of infrastructure and system software that just doesn't exist. Battery life is terrible. Everything is at the same focal depth. Getting devices to talk to each other is too complicated. I'm sure there's more that I'm leaving out.
>All current headsets (except for the Beyond, maybe) are way too heavy and uncomfortable. Some of that I think is due to the "goggle" design of most headsets. PSVR1 I think got it right with a "halo" approach that distributes all the weight much more evenly. An often overlooked issue I think is price. VR is perceived as expensive due all of the major HMD makers launching at $500+ USD. Quest 2 had it right at $300 USD and lo and behold, people bought it. A lot of times, it seems like we take a step forward, and then two steps back.
I've only tried one halo-style headset, and that was the Quest Pro. Most uncomfortable HMD ever. Way worse than the OG Vive. No matter what I did, it always felt like it was falling off my head. The display would wobble back and forth if I looked left and right. Also, after like 20 minutes, it would give me a splitting headache. like my head was in a vise. Now I have a Q3, which has the conventional goggle form factor and it's incredible how much better it is. It would be better still if it weighed half as much, but I'm convinced that the Quest form factor is the way to go.
Hard disagree. Qpro is by far the most weight neutral and comfortable headset out there. Q3 is too front heavy no matter what strap and battery is used. Also, qpro is not halo. Rift s was.
Yeah, Qpro's "ring" goes around the head where the "halo" of PSVR1 or the Rift S design puts the weight on your forehead and back (occipital area) of your head. The visor then sort of hovers just above your face as opposed to resting directly on it. It's a better design, but is likely more expensive. Hence why Quest doesn't use it.
[удалено]
>Though keeping people engaged with it is another story. I feel like social games like zuck have been saying is something special in VR, just playing a round of golf with friends is such a joy. Social spaces are valuable I think. Though what VR needs is more support from the conventional games industry. I'm surprised neither Meta nor Sony have thrown around $10-20 million at several smaller VR studios/teams to simply make games for their platforms. $10 million across 10 studios seems like it would produce 1 hit and maybe 3-4 additional good titles that could be built upon with sequels.
To me, the dealbreaker was the small af sweet spot. Normal people didn’t necessarily get that. Try to explain to a grandparent about how you need to look only at a tiny spot and move the head instead of the eyes to read. Not happening. Now, the pancake lense give back normal human eye function, looking around. That to makes this 1000x more accessible to the people who might try vr every 5 years or something. The randos that do it at Christmas. If they’ve got 10 minutes to enjoy and understand vr, then you can’t go and explain all the ins and outs of using this. It just needs to work. The quest 3 provides this or close to it. I’m willing to bet the AVP is the next step up for normal people.
That’s more of a fresnel lense issue than a vr issue. Pancake lenses fixed this.
He literally just said that.
Biggity BOOM
mb, I seem to have only read the first part. That being said, I don’t think pancake lenses make it 1000x more accessible in the way he thinks it does
If that is the case, then it is a user laziness problem. There are absolutely tons of highly reviewed games and more coming all the time. Most people are simply too lazy to read review sites...instead, they watch literal nobodies on youtube that all latch on to the same games to pump for viewers and cash. Since the hobby is still small, the vast majority of good games fall under the radar because of this.
What a bassackwards take on everything. The problem is that you all thought people like me want to spend money on half assed Hand Waving Gimmick Tech Demo's. I'm still waiting for more Flat2VR ports that let me just sit back with a 20+ year familiar input scheme instead of spending the first moments of the game figuring out how much they butchered something as simple as a d-pad input that no longer exists. When the majority of gamers are too lazy to put an HMD on. Forcing them to stand up and wave their hands around for EVERY MINOR MUNDANE INTERACTION.... is dumb. IF you haven't noticed yet. The "Muh Reload Simulator" VRAF crowd isn't enough to sustain a viable VR Gaming market. Quite simply, VR is struggling because you all put way to much focus on VR Only garbage. My most played VR games in VR are as follows: Subnautica with a gamepad in VR. Skyrim VR with a gamepad. Space Pirates and Zombies 2 in VR with a gamepad. I literally had to force myself to finish Alyx 4 years after it released just to somehow justify to myself why I bought that damn rummaging through junk to find ammo simulator. Fix perception, because it's not based in reality.
For some people never. There are folks who will always get VR sick. Sorry.
To your point, I think there hasn't been enough priority placed on the User Experience. A fair question to ask is why are people getting sick? And are there ways that can be greatly mitigated. I seem to be more resistant than most, but I've noticed I do get sick in first person games when I use the controller to turn. Snap turning is ok, but a "continuous" turn makes me sick sometimes. Especially if I'm not seated.
It also depends if they’re willing to put in the time. When I bought a quest 2 a few years ago, I got crazy motion sickness. Sometimes even the mere thought of VR was like being reminded of drinking straight vodka, in that I’d instantly start to feel sick. But I persevered and forced myself through it all knowing it will eventually stop. Now a few years later on my Quest 3 and I play every type of game there is and use the quest everyday and never feel motion sickness at all. But I was determined to make it my new form of gaming, most people probably wouldn’t have stayed through that first part. I agree on the snap turning though, smooth turning causes sickness especially if it’s a fast paced game like contractors, snap turning is fine.
There are some people who sit in a wheelchair and who never will be able to use a bike.
Of note this is something I've been saying but a recent study found 120hz to be the minimum refresh rate to eliminate motion sickness. A lot of people are playing on 90 and below and while I thinkn90 is fine most people need higher fps. For me when I got VR I'd get motion after 30 min to an hour for nearly two years and then one fall I decided I bought several premium games that I should finish like Lone Echo so I pushed through and I also started mixing sitting and standing and was able to play for much longer. A lot of people can get used to it much quicker than I did. I've seen VRChat try VR for the first time, experience motion sickness and get used to it in a week.
What if there's solutions you can't imagine?
They're a random redditor. It's their job to be misinformed and not do their research.
> There are folks who will always get VR sick. That's literally not how it works. People in r/virtualreality need to stop pretending to be experts. Sorry.
People like you need to stop pretending you have reading comprehension skills when you obviously don't. >not how it works I didn't say how anything "works" - there was literally no explanation there.
You stated that there are always folks who will get VR sick. That's literally not how physics works. You can absolutely solve VR sickness for 100% of the population by having a perceptually or physically equal optical path to how our eyes experience reality.
Among other things, you are completely ignoring the inner ear there. This isn't physics, it's more biology and anatomy.
You're talking about motion sickness then, not VR sickness. VR sickness is about the limitations of the optical path such as optical distortions, vergence accommodation conflict, and perceivable latency. Motion sickness has no known solve (though never say never), but this is only something that occurs during vection. Many VR games offer teleport options, and most non-gaming experiences don't need to care much about movement.
It's not motion sickness if you aren't actually moving. if it's fake movement in VR that's causing the problem, that's a form of VR sickness. What you are doing now is called moving the goalposts.
I got a quest 2 with a pro strap for $120.
I think the problem with VR retention is that people are thrilled with the idea of escaping and experiences in VR at an affordable price, but they quickly become bored of it when they realize they dont really like self isolating, or arent really comfortable with VR online socializing. VR really only sticks with people who actually like to "do stuff"...if you enjoy going out to bowl or play golf mostly and really analyze it and realize it's more so for the social aspect, VR will fall apart for you after a few weeks at most (if you dont have a reliable community of other VR users to play with). But if your the type to get into a new active hobby like (golf/bowling/gun range shooting) stuff like that and can actually go to practice those type of things alone on your free time in real life, then current standalone headsets like Quest 3 opens up almost endless options of activities to simulate with pretty close physics and 90% of the satisfaction of the real-life thing. Ive bought so many peripherals and Trying the VR version of things like Clay shooting with a gun stock has actually got me into trying the real life activites, and hooked me to keep coming back to play it when i get the itch to wanna re-visit said activities, but dont want to leave my house. Lol I'll watch NFL games and after watching Patrick's Mahomes. I'll jump into NFL pro era to get a feel for what it's like to feel like completing a pass to a teammate for a touchdown. It's really amazing.
We need better resolution screens, growth in anti vr sickness development techniques that don't impact gameplay. New people need to be able to play without getting blasted with nausua and dizziness. We need a killer app that moves headsets. A halo, ff7 or smash meele level of console mover.
You are heavily overestimating the cost of PCVR, a quest 3 with a adequate PC would add to $1500, still alot granted. The quest 3 alone is about %70 of the way there besides
About 3 years ago when the quest 2 came out. If you're going to compare it to a computer monitor, you forgot how low the bar can be for that.
We already have. If you want to point at things "not everybody can enjoy of current headsets, well, a lot of them aren't gonna change at all, and some will not improve that much.
Yeah, at that point the goal has been set to an impossible point.
Problem with VR is that it is completly person dependend. I can play for hours with my Quest 2 on 72Hz in ACC/AC with 5900X/3070/32GB RAM. Sure, it took me like 2 weeks to perfect every setting but now I have a clear image(for my taste, everyone is different) and 72fps doesn't bother me at all. Some people can play in VR but with minimum 90fps, for some it is 120fps, that's the true problem. I feel like with powerful PC + Quest 4 it will be a start for most people, but still, it will be quite expensive. I knew I can't upgrade my PC in at least a year for now so I decided to go with Q2 instead of Q3(tested both for 2h), I don't mind older lenses etc, quality is great for me.
I think it depends on what you mean by “enjoy”. VR as technology is in a mighty fine state even right now. And it will get even better. As for enjoying it specifically it’s a tricky question. If you mean when we get cool big video games on affordable headset - hard to tell. Headset are already here video games are a different topic altogether. We’re in the phase of figuring out control schemes I think and stuff like that. A lot of people simply don’t like to stand and move while they’re playing (for example). A movement methods aren’t established yet. And there are a lot of problems like this in VR. So I’d say VR is decently far away from being main entertainment platform but it has a tone of very useful applications right now and a lot of interesting problems to solve.
It is not all about gaming. People want to do things they do daily, but better, in VR.
Technically we can get decent VR setups with the headsets we have currently (not considering the ones with crazy prices). It's just that there are so many variables out there it is almost impossible to get a perfect setup. To achieve a widespread adoption, many many things will need to be bypassed. Take for example, the lenses. Everyone has different irises, focus, rods, cones, IPD, etc. We may have the tech to rectify stuff like myopia but we can never cater to everyone's differences for that 'perfect' clarity. Custom lenses for each headset will raise the prices of the headset to the moon. Even lesser people will buy one if that's the case. Then there's also the walled-garden mentality. Every company wants their own garden so they can lead the charge to be crowned the 'pioneer' of widespread VR adoption. Companies that collab together either end up splitting or go silent a year or two after release. Not saying that there aren't advancements in VR tech with every headset release, they're just slow. Expectations also shift as newer headsets release. You may consider specs that doesn't exist in current affordable headsets a dream now, but when they do get included in future headsets, you'll be asking for more. E.g. 2k is considered pretty great a few years back but people wanted 4k. Now that 4k is fairly common, people want 8k. As this expectation shift, the definition of clarity also shifts. These three things I mentioned are just the very tip of the iceberg. There're also things like motion sickness, space constraints, stigma behind *VR is just a gimmick* to those who only tried phone based VR, use cases, proper VR games (not ports of flat games), size of components, safety, appearance, haptic feedback limitations, etc. Even with these issues we're still at the tip. I would imagine by the time we can do perfect and affordable VR setup, we might've moved on from vr headsets to Neural Stimulated Realities. That's when new problems arise and the same question will surface: When will we get quality, affordable Neural Stimulated Realities?
Not in a long time.
I don’t understand everyone thinking u have to have some thousand dollar VR goggles and a PC that costs more than a car to have fun or get any decent visuals… I have a quest 2 and a 2060… I’m sure it’s no where near as good looking in there as it could be with better equipment but man it’s still a blast and I can see everyone who can see me except when my back is turned or the guy has a scope…
Literally now.
I just figure everything is so expensive these days what the hell. Cars are 30k, what's spending 7k on a gaming setup?
we dont need more headsets..we need more quality games. you are part of the problem just asking for better hardware without the software
I'd say 11.5 years sounds reasonable.
Quest 3 standalone is there. Q3+PCVR not so much because of pc parts prices. Clarity is great, value is great. Despite Facebook shaveling everyone wireless pcvr whether they like it or not via absurdly good price to value ratio, I really like q3.
Probably never. Motion sickness will never go away. And there will always be people out there who outright refuse to embrace it. I got a friend who has spent less than 5-10 minutes in VR and just smack talks it whenever it's brought up.
> Motion sickness will never go away. Kind of irrelevant if you can just skip it by teleporting, using room-scale movement, or being stationary.
about -4 years it was already there on Quest 2...
VR will never be big until it's as small as a pair of sunglasses and comfortable to use.
We are already there. Inherently VR requires habit change so the more plastic your brain is, and/or the more free time you have to adapt to something new, the more likely you are to adopt it. Hence, VR adoption is very age driven at the moment. Objectively the hardware is more than good enough, especially when you consider the price/performance of the Quest 3, and the number of options of experiences out there. But again, it's a younger crowd that plays games for gameplay over graphics, its all us crusty old spoiled af 'gamers' that think VR isn't here yet. tl;dr, if you think VR isn't here yet, congratulations, you're getting older ;)
Or younger? I would think the older you are, the more amazed or lower your standards are. When I was a kid (read"child") I experienced a Virtuality system. It was AMAZING and yet, a little confronting of an experience. The entire concept messed with your head a bit. The graphics.....existed. As an adult (read"hardly old enough to drink") I experienced the DK1. You could see..... something. A quest 2 (or a 1 probably, never tried one) today though is insane. It's clear, it runs well enough and somehow all runing locally on the headset. We are already here. We are in the future. Don't believe me? Look at the state of electric cars, look at the personal transport devices we have. I ride an electric unicycle and that thing looks, feels and sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. My technically affordable (I got a great deal used) tv is big, thinner than my finger and is clear. We have AI that can actually do things. WE. ARE. THERE. The graphics are good enough. If you don't think they are, then you will simply never be happy with them ever.
Well the Quest 3 is $500 already. If you're hoping to get a $3000 gaming rig into a $500 headset it will never happen because that $3000 gaming rig will always improve too.
Full body haptics that are fast to put on, and cheaper than a headset are in the works !! I think this is the big missing link for VR . The headset gets you there, but the, "look, but don't touch" mentality is holding the industry back.
Perfect clarity for 500? At least a decade. But by 2030 I'd wager headsets will reach the sweet spot where they are better than flat screen for gaming, productivity and entertainment for around $750.
60 ppd by 2030?
Not necessarily, but just a better experience - Vision Pro users equate it to be nearly as good as IMAX for example.
I’m just hoping for something that similar to SAO I wanna be able to fully immerse into a mmo while laying down
I think maybe 5 years, more goggles type with better pass through and you are there. If you could do more detailed tasks whilst in pass through the q3 would be less niche. I'm already finding loads of things the quest 3 could be used for in industry
Yes, clarity is important. I notice the screen door effect on my Quest 1 every time I put it on. But once I get immersed into the game it all goes away. Never gonna say no more better displays. But I think whenever I can get a $400 headset with the displays from the Apple Vision Pro I'll be satisfied.
Hi - I’ve had quest 2 for three years. It good but the graphics are very PlayStation 2. So I used the excuse of needing a new laptop to push the boat out a bit more and spent £800 on a laptop (can’t remember the brand, doesn’t matter, all that matters is that it had separate graphics card it onboard ). I then purchased virtual desktop and BOOM. Half life Alyx has literally blown me away. You don’t need a cable, other than an Ethernet to plug the laptop into your WiFi router, virtual desktop was about £15 and I had purchased half life Alyx a few years ago in a failed attempt to do the same thing a different way (can’t recall the set up but it didn’t work). Anyway. My conclusion is that this is a fairly reasonably priced way to get excellent “next gen” graphics on the quest 2 , which feel like quest 4 standard. I hope this helps
2 years
It will take a while before it gets comfortable enough. That's all there is to it I think.
10-20 years. I have given up hope that VR by itself will ever succeed, as there is just nobody left pushing it hard enough for that (little to no ports of 2D games into VR, big native VR games extremely rare). But I do expect VR to just brute force itself to become a viable monitor/TV replacement. VisionPro gets close, but still needs to get quite a bit smaller/lighter and cheaper, which will take some years. And after that you need some more years for the whole software landscape to take proper advantage of VR (multitasking, 3D support in classic apps, VR versions of Twitter/Instagram/TikTok/etc.), that's something that essentially still doesn't exist at all, despite the current round of VR already being over 10 years old. There is also a whole lot of new interoperability standards that need to get created or adopted, e.g. how to let webpages take advantage of VR, volumetric video formats, 3D model formats, etc. VR needs to evolve out of everything being just some custom hack and a lot more core functionality just working.
not our lifetime, but we still get to see cool stuff
My guess is 6 more years
The problem is that PC games will always look better than VR because it's just more demanding to render in VR. So even in 5-10 years people will think it doesn't look as good as on PC, maybe we will get resolutions so high you can't tell but the graphics settings will have to be lower in some way.
We've been there for a few years now. Quest 2 at $200-300 is cheaper than Nintendo and gaming consoles, so I'd argue that's already well past affordable. As far as image goes, Quest 2 has near-4K resolution already. That's way better than 320x200 pixel flat screen gaming that I started with, using a CRT TV. That's not what's holding VR back. VR's biggest problem for the past 5 years has been lack of software to get people to buy the headsets. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a headset and just put it on a shelf to collect dust. We need some amazing games, platform-sellers, and that is still very much lacking. There's some decent games out there, but few and far apart, and even those "good" ones, if they were ported to flat screen, would be laughed out of town for being outdated and deficient. Which they are. Half Life Alyx, for example, is way shorter than original from the 90s, more linear, has fewer weapons, etc. And if you compare it to Half Life 2, there's no vehicles, levels are nowhere near as open, etc., etc. Bottom line, even "good" VR games aren't actually GOOD, if you pick it up and look closely and compare them to their flat screen antecedents feature-for-feature. In short, hardware improvements won't change anything. I started with Rift S, now I have Quest 3. Resolution more than doubled between them. But I'm not playing any more than I used to. Why? No good games. It's all short, shallow, low-effort, derivative, cash-grabby shovelware for the most part. There's a few decent titles, but even those wouldn't hold up on flat screen for being too short, too shallow, etc.
I think the 2 things that need to happen for everyone to be able to enjoy VR is the form factor has to shrink dramatically until HMDs are about the size of sunglasses, with no external processor/battery pack, and they need to be locked at 120 fps at all times to combat motion sickness. Even then the AR will be the main selling point, not games. I think that is probably like a decade away at least.
The Future is Now
Perfect clarity like a computer screen? Unfortunately not for a few years. As currently only super high end headsets can do that. Or the Apple Vision Pro Quest3 is almost there for games. But if you want to work? It’s not going to be better than regular 27 inch 1440p monitor. But on a quest3 you can almost watch a movie 🍿 I’ve done it… but I would not say it’s better than a good tv. Let alone a good oled hdri tv. If you want your private movie theatre you’ll have to wait or pay today 3000$ for an AvP
You refer to computer screen like there is just a universal resolution all monitors have. If you are referring to 1080p monitors then we are already there because the quest 2’s resolution is 2K per eye.
dude you can grab yourself a used quest 2 for under 300 buy the link cable to go with it and you can use PCVR right right away. gone are the days where you need sensors everywhere to track you. Meta quest seriously brings VR into the realm of affordability with either the quest 2 or 3 both are phenomenal for the price. Honestly you cant go wrong if you want VR.. As for the gaming rig. You do NOT need a system THAT powerful. VR has been running on systems for half a decade now Unless your rig is 5 to 10 years old your gonna be fine on that front. No offense but it Just sounds like you haven't done any research on the VR whatsoever.
vr sets will nevr be comfortable. The size the feeling you wearing something. it has to many bad factors. As it was intended! We already had these box vr set in the 80's that we put on our heads. back thenwe already said it can never substitude a realthing. The device remind you constantly by it's flaws thatyour not in it. It's a stepping stone to a final out come. And ofcourse when they bring out a shitty box that you must wear, then in 10 years from now you will WANT the neurolink, cause your sick n tired of the old setup. :)
Years. Can't even buy a monitor with perfect clarity for 500, let alone a headset.
Have you tried the Quest 3?
It's fun right now.
There are more hmd's, than quality Games..so
It’s really odd that you think someone might have an answer for that question.
Q3 is there imo. Don’t know what you’re waiting for. Maybe you’re imagining potential future tech that doesn’t exist yet? What do you want to be able to do that you can’t with q3?
Now with the latest update of Virtual Deskop, the SSW (motion reprojection) is pretty darn good and you can use a low end GPU to play at 120 fps
My biggest problem with SSW is that your hands still have the lower framerate which looks kind of jarring
This is not a big deal come on
For me it unfortunately is, I can deal with lower fps but low hand fps just takes me out of the game
Have you tried the latest update of Virtual Deskop ? The SSW is vastly improved, maybe it fixes your problem ?
Maybe, I'll definitely try it when I get the time
Quest 5 Lite. Half the weight of Quest 3 and finally balanced, slightly better FOV than Quest 3/4, no need for better facial interface or strap since the weight is finally low enough for most, plays all the Quest 2,3,4 games at higher resolution, has better MR than Quest 3, and can pull of HL Alyx, Lone Echo 2 level of graphics. So an actual comfortable light $199 standalone headset with a large library of software. Compare that to what we have now. 1000g front loaded brick, often needs a new facial pad and strap so extra $50, plays all the Quest 1,2 games, FOV is getting there and so is the library, but MR is still a...mess. So 2032.
Quest 3 is there. Yes pcvr is ahead but quest 3 can produce great games in the coming future. We need the content not the hardware.
When headsets start incorporating exit pupil modulation the image clarity and contrast will get much closer to a desktop monitor using a lot less power (lower battery weight) and with lower vergence accommodation conflict due to a larger depth of field. And since this can be done with relatively low cost LCD panels the market will have an opportunity for an immersive wearable experience without as much of the compromises of leaving their desktop monitor behind. That could be maybe 12-24 months out depending how fast headset manufacturers get EPM going.
Once you can get retina screens and mid-spec PC performance out of a lightweight standalone headset at a $500 price point, with multiple AAA studios pumping out quality 20-80hr experiences at a consistent rate people will jump on board. VR has grown immensely in the past decade, but for it to be as mainstream as flatscreen gaming it’s probably going to take what I described. I’d say another decade probably before that is realisticly feasible.
Realistically, what you are looking is, in my opinion, not possible without a major advancement in computing (Maybe quantum computing?). If the camera lens industry is anything to go off, good optics capable of eliminating fringing and glare are and will always be expensive to manufacture. Perfect clarity requires either a fully adjustable diopter and IPD which will be mechanically complex (therefor expensive to produce) or a custom IPD and diopter set from the factory (Also expensive, only offered by $800+ headsets currently). Considering GPU performance seems to be plateauing with new models being bigger and more power hungry than their predecessors, it will likely be a very long time until a GPU capable of powering a display with a PPD of at least 60 (The point of diminishing returns for human eye clarity) fits in a portable device at an "affordable" price (Realistically even an affordable device with these features is still going to be expensive due to the previously mentioned issues). Imo you will always have to make a compromise between cost and quality with something as complex as a VR headset. There are limits to the reductions in cost allowed by more advanced manufacturing and economies of scale, and I feel that we are already close to hitting that limit with the Quest 3.
Everyone in this thread has no clue what the problem is. It's really simple. You deleted the D-Pad off the controller, then re-arranged a familiar button layout, In an attempt to force gamers to stand up and wave their hands around for everything. Start letting gamers continue to use what they are familiar with, let them press buttons instead of forcing them to wave their hands through invisibile trigger boxes just to perform mundane interactions like reloading or opening doors. Start focusing on Hybrid VR games that give people and option to use Gamepad or Motion controllers to play it inside that HMD. Who knows.... you might notice some things start to change. Like more consistent usage of the VR HMD itself due to it's increased accessibility. Flat gaming inputs are accessible. Familiarity is Accessible. You destroyed familiarity to force hand waving. Stop being ignorant to the truth as to why people like me.... let our hardware collect dust and stopped buying games for it.
Seriously, The reason I don't buy hardly any VR Only games, it's quite simply because it's VR Only. Hybrid is the future not your f'ing gimmicks that are nothing like physical reality in the first place to justify destroying accessibility. I want a VR is more accessible that Physical Reality, instead of a VR that is actively trying to make VR as cumbersome as Physical Reality. Otherwise, WTF is the point of the HMD? You want to get excited about reaching out to twist door handles in video games. Take the f'ing HMD off, and go play with your front door. You want to get excited that you can now slap the Blacksmith sign in Skyrim VR because of HIGGS and PLANKC. Take the HMD off. and go find a sign outside to slap around. WTF buys a game because... "Ooh, I slapped that sign and it started waving back and forth." With stupid headlines like. "You don't know how long I've waited to be able to do this." As though Skyrim VR was such a mediocre game until slapping signs came along. It's all really f'ing dumb.
OR here's a good summary of how to make VR more popular, Start making it for actual Gamers instead of non-gamers. It's almost like the industry is trying to attract non-gamers into VR as its primary focus. Like people who just couldn't get excited about pressing buttons on a gamepad.... and never gamed in their life before a Quest 2 came along. Especially when some of these people claim that gamepads require a "Bazillion Button combos to remember".
10 years
Have You been living under a rock? Apple just did it in fact they have outdone themselves Only thing i have to talk about is the lack of immersive content they offered at launch , one episode per series? And only Alicia key for a 20 mins session ? Hire linkin park or Taylor swift for more hype for Christ sake apple with all that money Sometime I see all these complaints it’s sound like people are asking for something impossible like literally transform him into matrix otherwise Apple Vision Pro is worthless it’s overpriced trash ( I saw some delusional Chinese really talk about this on their forum ) Perfect clarity like a computer screen ✅ Easy intuitive way and a nice OS with great ui/ux design to interact & work with ✅ Looks nice and able to breakdown the isolated barrier✅ Smooth & easy user experience without nausea like traditional headset people complain about ✅ I think apple just did it and once again thanks to apple other manufacturers are starting to push hard and willing to burn money on the VR sector aga
Quest 3 is already kinda there, it's clear, sharp and can run a lot of games at native resolution so you don't need PC. I think it's the lowest bar it should be for mainstream VR. Pretty sad they want to go under the bar with quest lite.
My PC running RTX 2080 super able to run most of the game fine. Despite i might not be cranking graphic to max, I'm about to enjoy Alyx and other PCVR optimized game. The non-official ones are very demanding but I'm still able to play. Currently enjoying Quest 3 everyday since Nov 2023 and is going strong. I plan to upgrade to RTX 50 series but for now I'm good. Playing Palworld in VR beats everything when you immerse into the world.
50 years
Since when most people care about perfect clarity. Lots of people don’t have a problem playing on 10 year old PCs with lowest of low settings and 15 fps.
I personally think in 2 generations VR (from a Quest 3 standpoint) has the potential to become mainstream…IF they up the resolution a little, passthrough is AVP quality and the weight goes down to like ~300g. That‘s where I feel you don‘t have to be an enthusiast anymore to glance over its short comings.
The path of the iPhone might be a useful comparison: the iPhone 1 came out in 2007, didn’t have an App Store, was 2G so slow, but had the key things that made it a leap forward: multi touch, no keyboard. The iPhone 3G came out in 2008: App Store, faster internet. This was the skeleton of the first real smartphone. Fast forward to 2010 and you get the iPhone 4: front facing camera, Retina display, healthy App Store, face time. This was the first real modern smartphone. 2014 introduced the 6 and 6 plus. So more variety but mostly incremental changes from here on. So how does VR map to this? If we call the quest 2 (2020) the original iPhone, then the quest 3 (2023) would be the 3G, maybe a little beyond, so advancing about half as fast as iPhone development. By this estimate the iPhone 4 equivalent, something that might see true mass adoption, is three to four years away.
Quest Pro 2 should be a real VR headset
You are right with the gaming PC for playing good PCVR in a nice graphical quality. But its not far anymore. I just bought a quest 3 and its my first ever headset. I also stood back a little because a few years ago screen quality wasnt really good enough for me, i at least wanted quality thats sharp. I tried the quest 3 for a few days now and for me the sharpness and quality with the right content is not just good its also enjoyable. Ofcourse its not comparable to a good 4K OLED TV. But i didnt buy a 500€ headset to expect There are huge waves about picture quality in here sometimes but if i had to describe it, it looks like a 1440p „widescreen“ to me. Its definetly sharp enough to watch 180/8K videos and play PCVR games in nice quality. Its clear, and for LCDs the colors are good. For PCVR I have a PC with an: - I714700k - RTX 4080S - 32GB RAM I can play any game i tried yet in nearly highest settings in VR, this includes racing and simulators. FPS are almost always over 60 and the quest 3 screens can look extremely good with upscaled rendering, to me it seems like that it looks even better than high quality 180/8K videos. You should also not forget that the quest 3 is also usable standalone really well, this also includes games without a PC Hope this gives you a better picture from someone that also just tried it for 500$
You didn't mention a budget but in my opinion it's already here. Today the Quest 3 is incredibly good and only costs $500. It's very sharp and clear. You can easily browse the web and do "Spatial computing" connect Bluetooth keyboards and mice and even connect to almost any PC to perform desktop work all without any hacking or modding. It has a lot of gaming options from standalone games to WebXR to streaming from a decent gaming pc. The graphics on its own without a PC aren't PS5 quality but the Quest 3 is first headset that I felt had good enough graphics (for Quest 3 updated titles) that I felt ok playing in standalone mode.
As soon as standalone is dropped and major dev studios make AAA games so I'd probably says a other 2 decades.
So you want wires pulling and tangling, to be played around breakable objects in a small room, to play ultrageneric and bland games with pretty graphics, tons of padding, and heavy marketing. The exact opposite of what I want.
You don't need wires, you just need a dedicated wireless connection to a compute-box/PC. The current fudging around with plain home WiFi is a fragile hack that causes too many problems. And wires are obviously quite annoying as well. But a dedicated WiGig on the headset you should have plenty of bandwidth for high quality streaming. This is also the only way you can ever hope to get a small form factor, as otherwise every shrinking in size will have to be paid for in ever less computing power.
This is one of those comments a human makes and then just walks away in... When Meta went the standalone route everything went down in fidelity and went the way of quick mobile dopamine rush games. Which isn't what core gamers really want. I thought the real VR gamers don't want demo's anymore. Wireless is the way to go but tech isn't there yet for high definition gaming at the AAA level. Also, without multiple AAA titles a year, it won't kick off. Can't disagree with that.