Wow! That is really big news and helps make up for MS pulling WMR support. I completely missed that one! www.theverge.com/2024/4/22/24137284/meta-license-horizon-os-quest-headset-lenovo-asus
I can definitely say that standalone VR headsets are what finally convinced me that I wanted to develop for the platform long term. Not getting wire tangled was part of it, but also seeing the low cost of entry informed the decision as well. I eventually ended up with a company that uses standalone VR to build industrial VR training applications for about a year and a half. Later on, that company had to do layoffs and I got caught in it. Since then I've been very intrigued with Mixed Reality on the Quest 3, and the idea that I can develop experiences that augment the real world around me has been very interesting. Currently there's not much developer competition, and very few big name companies are willing to invest in platforms that don't cover the absolute largest pool of people. Right now it leaves a lot of room for independent developers to pick up the slack and make a name for themselves. Its not often you get to find a market, and be in a position to make some of the first products people see when new demand rolls in. I'll google an idea to see if it exists for VR/AR yet, and often times nobody has filled the void yet. That quickly becomes a potential project I can take on. Of course, the gamble even as an independent developer with less to lose is that Meta eventually nails the audience retention and mainstream interest. And Meta's gamble is that app developers make their platform more compelling. I personally feel like Meta's continued efforts are probably what will allow VR/AR to eventually hit the mainstream.
If you have the time to devote to it, the worst case situation is that you gain some valuable experience. The best case scenario is that you create a killer app that takes off! Good luck!
Im in a similar position @sebaneTech. Im gainfully employed right now as an animator but have always seen a lot of value in unreal engine and unity in all kinds of things other than video games. When I got my quest 3 and saw the passthrough the first thing I did was look into how the passthrough is being utilized int he market. theres really nothing of substance. I mean there are a few fun games here and there but a lot of them are just putting something on a flat surface and its another way of viewing. With microsoft shutting down support for hololense in 2027, I think theres going to be a huge hole in the market for AR.
Excellent video. I got into VR in 2017, been a enthusiast since, the thing I like about VR is the escape from the real world, it can be imaginary worlds (so many of these in VR Chat) and VR Experiences like "Fantasynth" (Free on Steam and old Rift stores). Personally, I have no use for AR / MR. I love sim racing and MSFS 2020, putting on the HMD and being either in the car or the plane's cockpit not staring at a flat screen, just actually being there. I'm 65, I've owned way too many VR headsets, I have two separate VR setups, upstairs (Quest 3), I use for general VR (Walkabout mini golf, Beat Saber, etc) and my basement setup for mostly sims and occasionally room scale Lighthouse tracked VR using the Pimax Crystal Light. I have to agree with pretty much everything you said, is VR dying, I don't think so, as more people get the "Quest" line of HMDs, they are also realizing it can be used as a PCVR HMD and then it opens up a whole new world of VR, especially for Sims (Racing or Flight). I remember the days of the OG Vive and Rift CV1, and then I think of the way it has come in a relatively short amount of time (7 years for me) and when I do simming in the Crystal Light and Quest 3, the visuals blow me away. The unfortunate truth, real PCVR headsets are heading in the direction of "Only the rich may apply", SomniumSpace VR1, Varjo XR4, etc, these are all outrageously expensive. As for the AVP, I always looked at it as the headset still looking for a purpose but then again, I'm no fan of Apple so I'm biased! LOL
There are also entertainment and productivity markets, which IMO are much larger than gaming. Those applications want comfort, resolution and FoV, but are less demanding of refresh rate. Apple has Vision Pro for entertainment and productivity in their walled garden; it has been adapted by some DIYers for Windows.
Some of the AVP entertainment offerings are very interesting and it only makes sense that they get everything worked out now. These same offerings will be perfect for AR.
I only tried VR two days ago at a local science festival, they were demoing Richie's plank experience...people walking by could see what was happening on a big flat screen..It didn't look too bad so I gave it a go, and wow the difference between wearing the headset and watching it was huge, when those elevator doors first opened my legs turned to Jelly! Definitely sold me on v.r even though despite only being in v.r for about 3 mins I had a headache for hours afterwards!
My wife gets car sick if I'm driving through winding roads in the mountains. She also has a low tolerance for VR. My son NEVER had an issue. Throw him in Driving and space flying games and nothing. Personally I had about 5 days of 30 minutes a day in Dirt Rally 1.0 before I got my VR legs.
@@markkovalcson7243 One interesting thing I've noticed quite consistently is that younger audiences (especially kids and early teens) seem to have a comparatively high level of tolerance against VR sickness. Amongst my adult friends who I've leant or gifted a headset to in order to play multiplayer titles, we're very often limited to games that use only teleport movement or those that are room scale with 1:1 locomotion, due to the majority feeling sick quickly in any game with smooth artificial locomotion. That feeling of nausea quickly forms a mental barrier to them ever wanting to try a similar experience ever again, and so I find it's extremely important when introducing people to VR that such experiences are at least initially avoided to avoid the risk of them believing all VR will inherently leave them feeling this way. Most of my friends also have kids however, and in every single case of them also trying the headsets they've had zero issues with any form of locomotion and will be happily flinging themselves around in the likes of Gorilla Tag and I Am Cat on day one for hours at a time. After their first experience, they often want a headset permanently and once they have one, they use it consistently on a near daily basis. I believe this also goes a long way to explaining why games that would typically be targeted at older audiences (e.g. Breachers) are consistently overrun by hordes of infamous "Quest squeakers". Kids tend to be the highest retention non-sim users, because they seem to be naturally more comfortable with VR experiences across the entire spectrum of locomotion options. I'm not sure if there's much that can be done to mitigate this with older audiences, because looking to encourage someone who feels nauseous playing many VR titles to try and try again with the promise of future enjoyment feels both counterintuitive and also a bit unempathetic. I do wonder however if the market for VR may naturally expand in future years, simply as a byproduct of younger audiences who have never actually struggled with VR sickness growing up and having more purchasing power and less ties to traditional console/PC gaming experiences and expectations.
@@synth5815 I've also noticed that adding motion to my rig reduced nausea for first time VR users. When you get more motion sensations and your brain is tricked into thinking you are actually moving it doesn't seem to protest as much.
I was on that same train for a while and finally decided the wait was too long and enough was enough. I moved on and if they ever do release something I'll be happy to see it, but I'm less and less sure what path they will take. Because of all the different needs people have, it has too much riding on their finding the right happy medium like the Index was.
100 percent!! Just use the same case, throw in 2880 or 2500 QLED screens and some pancake lenses. The tracking is fine, the sound is fine, the headset and form factor are fine. We don't need 3300by3300 or whatever, my 4090 can't even run that!
Quick correction, minor detail but the quest 1 releases at 399. Quest 2 launched at 299 though, and eventually got a free storage upgrade which was the biggest VR headset value of all time
Been playing the new Batman game on quest . It’s pretty damn awesome! Hard to believe this is running on quest . I feel once quest 4 hits and they switch to pancake oled and snap dragon 3 is going to be the game changer .
Have a Quest 2 for 3 years and even that far surpassed anything that cost $2,000 plus in home device. Felt like I stole something else while paying $300. Software library and quality isn't there yet though
@@toututu2993Q2 offers unsurpassed value, I agree, also lasts long enough and rarely you can hear the fans, design looks better to me than that of Q3 also
I’ve been playing Batman as well, it’s really impressive. Not sure if you’ve ever tried Quest games optimizer or not, but it really makes the game next level. I just got the optimizer recently and it’s incredible.
A small point, but I think still worth mentioning. Quest3, although not quite so 'flashy', seems to be essentially as versatile as the AVP. And although AR is not here yet, Q3 does a good proximation with its own MR/XR abilities. Loved the discussion!
I think focusing AR as see-though lightweight headsets will not hurt, but rather grow VR software market. Because as long as those AR headsets have all the properties necessary for VR experiences to be ran with (standalone or streamed), such workable field of view, some display density, 6-dof tracking. Those will be not different from a VR headset if you just attach a plastic shutter over it. However those may have much more selling points for different people who didn't catch on buying just VR, and therefore grow potential VR user base.
It can happen like it did with PC and Mobile gaming. PC or Mobile hardware never existed for gaming in first place. We used to buy PCs for work and phones to communicate. And as soon as that hardware grew multimedia functionality, gaming market began to grow on top of it. Since VR pretty much failed to find it's broad business application except for very niche places like automotive visualization (nobody is willing to do their spreadsheets in a clunky headset). Maybe then AR will go the same path mobile phones did to become today's smartphones, providing everyday application first.
Great video. I have spent too much on VR already and am one of those gamers who just love it. Mostly just to play DCS so love my BSB. I also regularly use my Quest 3 to try MR to see my cockpit and believe that is definitely my niche when it actually works well. Thanks for the effort.
I went to try out the Vision Pro at one of Apple’s stores a while back, and I always felt like the use case it fits more is more of something between a laptop and desktop. It’s portable and fits in a bag, but you can have multiple monitors, a big screen, all with a very interactive interface. On top of that it can also be used for VR if you want. I didn’t get to try it with a mouse and keyboard but I can imagine that combined with the hand/eye tracking would make it so easy to use. It makes sense, given it seems like all their end goal is AR glasses, but the form factor just isn’t there. It felt like they’re targeting a market the product just isn’t ready/isn’t built for. Anyway, you’ve done a great job at making an overview! I appreciate that you covered pretty much every aspect of the VR space right now!
The AVP will seamlessly work with an Apple laptop. Similarly Orion will seamlessly work with a Windows laptop. You simply look at the laptop and you can extend apps into your virtual augmented space. What I find cool is that the screens are anchored and you can get up with the headset on and walk away from what could be a wall full of apps and not have all that in your way but still waiting for your when you sit back down in front of where you put the apps.
This is a great summary of the current VR and AR landscape. Personally, I'm not convinced about AR's real advantages-wearing a device on my face all day for virtual screens doesn't make sense. Apple's spatial computer feels like a failure for now, though it may improve. On the other hand, VR's immersive experiences, especially in gaming, are still appealing, though limited to short sessions of 30-60 minutes. A major issue with VR, besides the high cost of premium devices, is the discomfort of wearing a headset, which remains a barrier to widespread use.
Incredible Video. I think VR will still have a place. I am a flatscreen gamer looking into VR and after seeing some of what recently became available (Games like Contractors Showdown/Breachers, which both give me good xbox to xbox360 vibes in terms of gfx/physics), I think they are on the cusp of putting out stuff that can really get gamers into it. I am looking fwd to trying out VR one day ^_^
Nice summary of the state of things. My first headset was the Oculus Gear VR in 2014 then I got the Rift a while later. I was shocked at how bad the Rift's fresnel lenses looked compared to the Gear VR. Until the Quest Pro came out the Gear VR still had the best lenses. Not that I hate fresnel for all headsets but my Rift had terrible "god rays". Anyway... it's kinda been a slow burn compared to the adoption of cell phones, but it was probably unrealistic to expect mass adoption quickly.
@@mariusmiliauskas1295 AR will be the conduit for your personal AI assistant to feed you constant context sensitive information about everything you care about around you. It will become as pervasive as smart phones are today. The possibilities are endless when you are interacting with the real world.
AR is as powerful as vr and is more suitable to every day use. If they ever manage to make a good enough AR glasses for consumers then is more than just for gaming which is for much larger audiences
@@markkovalcson7243 Judging how people are distrustful with current technology, i am skeptical they would want companies to be even closer to their heads. Yesterday i played Asghard's Wrath 2. While i like the game, i realize that standing for 2 hours playing, is not for everyone. It takes a lot more effort than sitting your couch with a controller in hand. Not to mention with people who have kids, that they don't want to smack around. Or are embarrassed, because other people may look at them caching invisible flies with a screen attached to their heads. I live alone so don't have that problem, but my brother is one of those cases. And motion sickness is a big problem for beginners. I spoke to one game developer, who said that VR will not take over till we have neural network technology. But who would trust companies to get inside their brains? Also siting in your imaginary world may also look weird on the outside, so AR would probably be a better bet there. The future technologies seem to get weirder and weirder by the day. I guess time will tell what will come of it.
As a sim guy who basically lives in a hp g2 Im pretty upset they are taking mixed reality down. Such a shame that my options are to go back to a heavy quest that i always had issues with the software optimisation for my sims or shell out a thousand plus dollars on a boutique headset. This video is amazing at explaining why the market is what it is. I learned so much i didn't know and now im depressed for the future of my beloved pc sim vr space.
I'm not convinced AR is going to be the boon Meta thinks it will be. People keep comparing it to the smart phone market, but the smart phone gave us something we never had before - a portable computer that fits in your pocket. A smart phone is the perfect device. It's always with you, you pull it out when you need it, and you throw it back in your pocket when you don't, out of sight, out of mind. Any AR device would be something you have to wear on your face. I'm a glasses wearer, and I want my glasses to be as small, light, and unobtrusive as possible, and even at that I would love it if I didn't have to wear them. I really wouldn't have a lot of interest in replacing them with something that is bulkier, heavier, and less stylish just because it can flash the news in front of my eyes. I can just pull out my smart phone for that. Then again, I'm an old fart, so maybe the younger folks will drive the market .
Personally, I think when AR devices become usable and affordable they will be adopted very quickly. They open up a pile of additional functionality that you can't get out of a phone without it being an inconvenience. More importantly, people won't walk into walls in malls because they can see their surroundings and are not looking down at their phone. I probably shouldn't use the word "malls" in the same breath as AR since malls appear to be dying.
You might be surprised by the stats on age demographics for my channel. While VR related topics tend to include younger age groups than Sim Rig related content, there are still a lot of people across the age range.
quest 1 released the same day as the Rift S and was not 299, it was at 499 and they watched to see which one sold. The two crypto booms, the price hikes and the 2020-2022 shortages did not do pcvr any favors. . I would also say the Valve IS selling the steamdeck at a loss or close to it and are "making it up" it up in software sales.
The Steamdeck has sold many millions at this point and has a much larger number of games that will play on it. I think selling the Steamdeck at a loss is much more financially viable than a VR headset. I know many people who buy new games, play them through and then buy the next game. So there is critical mass there to support this working.
My journey started with the original PSVR back in 2016. I remember they had a demo unit on my local mall and I couldn’t help but to get one on the spot. Worked great-ish with my PS4 pro. Fast forward to my rtx4090 + pimax crystal and quest 3 for wireless. Yeah, its been a treat to see the sector grow like it has. I remember wishing for the resolution we now have, or as many games that are now possible thanks to UEVR and LR mods. And yup! I want more. Cant wait for the 5090 now or a headset with even more resolution! I must say, FOV is the one thing I dont think it has barely changed. Would love to have 130ish to be the standard, maybe another 5 years? =(
It looks like as you said, VR will be funded by AR like Jazz was funded by the Rock and Pop industry. I just hope PCVR hardware and software doesn't diminish in getting any love, and can be swept along and kept afloat with the rest of it somehow and we don't get terrible VR implentations like EA WRC's in house attempt recently. Great video Mark.
My hope is to see a convergence of VR and AR - basically RGBA-capable display tech. That's at least a good 10 years, but getting display tech that can do it all would be quite useful. Beyond that, perhaps there's 2 standardized form factors: everyday glasses, and a slightly larger wearable with max FOV, etc., essentially following the large/small device dichotomy we currently have for everyday mobility vs. for serious entertainment/productivity uses. But until the mythical hardware hits the mass market, MR headsets are the way to go right now to build content, UX, etc. and despite the limitations of their market share, they are still delivering extremely well on actual uses today, held back in particular by how primitive the software still is.
I only use VR for sim racing, 5yrs ago i was so optimistic about VR when i 1st got my quest 2 but after 2-3yrs of disappointment after disappointment with VR games just being glorified demos. Yes i bought a quest 3 but its for sim racing like i said. Anyone thats been around for a while is probably just as jaded as i am, i assumed..
I'd have bought the AVP if it was either priced more in the $1500-2000 range or if it supported PCVR. I'm pretty exclusively a flight and racing sim vr user. I dont think the tech is quite there yet for anything more, but if I could get a reasonably priced MR headset with a feature set like the AVP which I could also use in sim titles, it'd be a no brainer. I don't think we've yet seen the golden age of VR. I agree that it will likely come around the same time as mainstream AR adoption happens for both technical and financial reasons. Even ten years into the modern VR era (I wont count the Virtual Boy i had as a kid), I think that people buying VR headsets today are still very much early adopters.
The Quest 3 for $429 has made VR what Id hoped it would be decades ago. I dont do standalone but Virtual Desktop and VDXR is simply a dream come true for flight sims and racing sims. The Odyssey and G2 were both painful because of WMR. Knowing Zuckerberg lost some money makes me feel warm inside, lol.
I had pretty much every oculus and meta headsets and i think i'm ready to go for something else next. I love the quest pro and i hope i can find something similar from samsung in the coming years. :)
VR never raised nor dying. People who actually tried a decent amoung in vr with some decent games/softwares is really amazed of its capabilities that nothing else come close. It basically slowly growing and there are yet to have a lot of people try it to actually know it
I've had a large number of people try out my VR system as it has evolved over the years. Usually I start them out in Beat Saber, then I put them in Half Life Alyx at the beginning just to let they interact with the virtual environment. After that they normally want to try driving my sim rig. So I feel like they get a pretty good idea of what VR is like. Of these people one already had a Quest 2, but most had never experienced VR. These are frequently technical people, some software developers, others with various science degrees. So far only one got a Quest for their son, none of the rest got VR systems. My two children are both gamers and both have VR systems, and their VR systems collect dust. From what I've seen many people enjoyed VR as something fun to try, but had no interest in getting a VR system after that. Others think it's cool enough to buy but then lose interest.
@@markkovalcson7243 Well I'm not impressed of the current vr library. It only shows like 1% of vr capability but the hardware is extremely advance althought no software means it can only do few things to show. I'm a kind of person who is extremely picky when it comes to tech. I found pc in the past century and now to be unmatches in home tech. Laptop is too unrliable and lack upgrade path, Iphone/smartphone is just inferior with painful touchscreen. But I see VR/AR to be the only tech that actually improve over pc in many potential way that I think every company need to risk investing in before they gonna get left behind Meta
@@markkovalcson7243 I would rather show people Eleven Table Tennis over Beat Saber due to how good and realistic the physics is in that game. It felt like playing the real thing showing people if it done right it just miles ahead of anything compared to flatscreen simulator sport. Beat Saber doesn't show a lot in potential term and it only give people false of vr being just another useless gimmick
I'm thankful for the Meta and the Q2/Q3. I would've never been able to afford VR otherwise. Would i like a VRPC? For sure, but it's a lot when you have a single income family.
Nailed it on the head. Im a vr gamer. I just want more games the gen 1 vive is fine. I don't want new hardware. Although now have the quest 3, but still playing the same games.
I still play "In Death", "Beat Saber", "Space Pirate Trainer", then iRacing is a subscription model, DCS evolves and occasional DLC and Dirt Rally 2.0. Recently I enjoyed Vertigo 2. I have played a bit of No Man's Sky. That title has really come along. The Sim titles are sort of perpetual things. Of course HLA. Once in a blue moon I fire up ReVive and run my Oculus titles Robo Recall, Lone Echo, The Climb. But yeah, some of these are titles from the early days of VR.
Most studios with big financial resources are not very interested in developing for VR. It puts a layer of complexity and extra work, that they are not interested.
"AR will be huge" - What is your prediction for the form factor and number of years out? How important is a mixed reality or visual display? Ray-band with cameras and audio are doable today, could be augmented with a minimal "google glass" style display for HUD. Is that good enough? Or do we need magic leap/holo lens display tech which is currently bulky and expensive. I guess another way to ask is what are the killer use-cases. I can see audio + AI in glasses being good enough to be a killer app today, but augmented reality isn't viable on a glasses for factor for another 5 - 12 years.
Everything always seems to take longer than you would hope. Glasses will be the form factor, but realistically I have no idea how long it will take for the stars to align. I think I'll error on the side of caution and say a decade is a good round number for something that works well and gains adoption. There will be some early attempts before that that will show how far technology has come and how far it has to go, and how interested people are in the technology at that point. So fits and starts as companies balance FOMO and actually having a good profitable product. So 4-5 years before we see something that sort of works for early adopters and 10 years before we have something for the masses ?!? It's a SWAG. I could be completely wrong. I was thinking about spatial computing after a brief time using a VR headset on a Silicon Graphics Onyx with Reality 2 Engine board back in 1992. Back then I assumed that if a 100K computer could do VR then, that we would have usable VR on 10K workstations in a decade and for home use 5 years after that. So my guess put home VR at 2007 and it ended up being 9 years after that. One thing I did guess right was that when the Index was launched, my controllers and base stations would be in use for a number of headsets to come past the Index. So far 3 and I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up at 4 or maybe even 5 headsets. However, I didn't have any timetable connected to that and I assumed that the new headsets would have continued around the $500 area like the Index vs. the $2,000 I spent on the Aero and ~ $1000 I spent on my Beyond.
@@markkovalcson7243 Valve really did the industry a solid on so many levels. Let us hope the Deckard ships in the coming years. Thanks for the detailed answers!
Gaming revenue by device is one thing, users by device is another, 20 milions quest 2 sold by 2024, nearly as much as xbox series X and S, there is room to make profits in VR gaming, but where are the good games?
Your wrong because AR is so much harder to pull off than VR from a technical standpoint. You cant make money on something you cant build yet. I have heard many industry guys say AR is next to impossible to pull off. The VR tanked because most ppl didnt want a brick strapped to their face and look through poor lenses that made their eyes hurt. The fact that theres no AAA games to play doesnt help either.
Time will tell. Magic Leap got $4 Billion in investment funding and they have many of the technical issues worked out, but they don't have the infrastructure of Meta, Apple etc.. My "guess" Is that Magic Leap will be acquired by a company with the rest of the pieces of the puzzle.
Who wants to crab 90% of the PC VR market, then do this: 1. Remove (qualcomm) cpu and add Display port connection. This will lower the price about 33% of the headset. 2. Do a second version called for example "Simulation version" and remove controllers. This will lower the price about 50%.
Basically you want a Rift S refresh :) BTW you are absolutely not alone! Re-engineering the Quest for a much smaller audience would likely make it more expensive to produce because of reduced economies of scale. Their current inside out tracking requires that CPU, and the trickledown would be substantial. They would have a much easier time starting with the Rift S and upgrading the displays, but they dropped that model for a reason. It doesn't fit with their long term goals and the Quest product line sells much better.
I think this is a pretty good overview of the state of VR. I don't exactly agree with all of it. Some of it I think is an overly pessimistic take, but not outside of reasonable. Underlying all of it is that the technology is still young, and this is fundamentally what holds back VR at the core. Your analysis doesn't seem to particularly account for this or what's going to happen as technological breakthroughs are made which resolve underlying limitations of the technology. You're kind of looking at it and projecting as if the underlying technology stays essentially the same. It's hard to predict when breakthroughs will come and what form they will take though. We just know that they will come. Some breakthroughs, like the advent of pancake lenses, already have. These breakthroughs will keep changing the equation as we move forward. PCVR was the first to rise when the technology to make effective mobile VR didn't exist yet. And then when mobile VR became viable, that fundamentally changed the equation. The way that has gone has pushed PCVR toward being a niche for enthusiasts for now, but I expect that to change again in the future. Mobile VR has grown a lot faster because it has been able to cross certain barriers sooner (particularly price thresholds). But eventually the technology will improve so that PCVR crosses those thresholds, too. And then the equation will change again. People argue about whether standalone or PCVR is the future. VR or AR. Where things are actually ultimately going is devices that do all of the above. None of it is going away, dead, or dying. it all just becomes features that all headsets/glasses have.
I never said it was going away. In fact I said at the end that I thought it will enjoy sharing the technology that is developed to make AR a reality. There are enough enthusiasts to keep companies building VR headsets and enough money to keep that going. I've had my Bigscreen Beyond for less than a year and I love it. It is radically different than anything else on the market today and I applaud them for doing that. Likewise in the larger form factor and at a higher price point the Somnium VR1 looks like it will be a great headset as well for people with a somewhat different priority set than I have. Whether Valve releases a standalone Steamdeck puck driven device, or supports Displayport 2.1 or both, who knows. I don't know where the VR market is going, but the wide diversity among headsets is a great thing!
When a Quest3's optics and tracking outperform a Varjo XR-4, (I bought both) you can't say it's all about selling at a loss. Even if Meta sold the Q3 for $1k it would be a superior product to many if not all for PCVR. I also own a Quest Pro, and I started with a cheap WMR headset back in the day. Disclaimer:I work at Meta but have nothing to do with RL and bought and paid for all my Quest products and accessories.
I did mention the huge R&D budget that Meta has to develop their products to produce the quality of pancake lenses and inside out tracking that they have. I have watched horror stories about the XR-4's inside out tracking especially when it was first released. I specifically said that Meta has the only good inside out tracking available because of their R&D.
streaming isnt there yet for a lot of pcvr players. meta should make a pcvr version with a dp and a lot of people would wander back to a place that was called oculus when they left
You seemed to have missed the, rather essential, spat between Google and Meta on VR/AR OS'. Google wanted Meta to join the new AndroidVR-group and Meta bluntly refused. You seem to have missed the Horizon OS vs AndroidVR OS groups that have been forming since December 2023 and that will shake up the VR World in 2025. You didn't even mention the Meta Quest 3S that has recently been released that is already shaking up the VR World and looks to eclipse the Quest 2 by a mile. 2024 was a BIG year for VR and everything is looking like 2025 will be an even bigger year with many new companies joining on the hardware and software front.
Yes, I did. Those are very big deals. I pinned another post mentioning the Horizon OS and included a link to the Verge article about it. That could potentially be better than an updated WMR.
There seems to be a huge gulf between what VR hype RU-vidrs are saying and the reality. "VR IS GETTING MASSIVE " headlines are getting pretty old!😅😅 Massive for people who are already obsessed and sold with VR? Not for those outside that little bubble. I for one enjoyed it forward while with pcvr, Reverb G2 and Quest2. Retention just not there sadly. Now pcvr is a monied enthusiasts hobby. Standalone Meta universe leaves me cold. I'm out of VR now because of that
Pew Research a while back released poll data that 25% of American teenagers are playing VR games. Gorilla Tag passed 1 million daily active users and 3 million monthly active users. The bubble isn't as little as you think. VR hasn't taken off overnight as the early hype suggested, but it has grown more than many people realize.
Have you not heard? PSVR2 also works with PC and is one of the best options. I just bought one myself open box for $300. Absolutely unbeatable for that price.
@SanctusBacchus I'm aware it works with PC as well. But it does lose some immersion. Its about as immersive as a quest 3 when both are on a PC because it won't have eye tracking, HDR, Advanced haptics, etc... Absolutely phenomenal price at $300
Sadly - I feel ive given up on VR, too often I have been disappointed in new games, and new hardware, and prices. The kids uses the quest 3 a lot though, I still follow VR on RU-vid, but I don’t play :( , why not just give quest 3 a display port! I’m a G2 owner, :(
Sorry about Windows 11 dropping support for WMR! I know a number of people bitten by that. New headsets will be released. I've seen some people go with a Crystal Light as a G2 replacement. If you get a good copy, I've heard from some happy campers. It does have more resolution so you will need a bit more GPU grunt to push it, but it also has a larger sweet spot to look around in.
I love Sony Psvr and Psvr2, but when Meta gets eye tracked dfr to work on a system level, when all games can be improved without the specific programming, it's game over.
@@markkovalcson7243 exactly this. Better performance on all games whether they are mobile or PC VR, and allowing the use of weaker PCs/gaming laptops to be used when previously they were not capable.
I didn't forget. I thought about e-Sports, but I considered it be even too small a niche among the niches I covered. My daughter even likes to use Beat Saber for some exercise. Personally I when I exercise indoors, I use large pieces of equipment and it's easier to just watch a big screen on the wall. I saw apps I could use on my spin bike, or rowing machine, but it's far easier to just throw something on TV than to get setup for VR to work out.
@@markkovalcson7243 The reason oculus/meta shut down services such as Pluto sphere and shadow is because of avalanche. Did you really think ready player one was going to happen cause everyone spent a couple $1000 on a PC to get in. The bandwidth wars are coming.
As Unreal game developer. Fragmented is good description. Making a game for VR is such a hassle now. Not the programming part, but the release. They should create better, unified standards and common platform, so that products are easier to publish for most headsets. Reaching enough players is impossible. Only 1.6% of Steam users use VR in the first place. Need to find some stupid idiot who pours crazy amount of money for me, to create the best VR game in the next 3-4 years, because markets are not big enough :D I don't see that happening.
Exactly how I feel as a Unity developer with VR. So many different standards that releasing games with support for the popular headsets just means so much time dedicated to supporting each different headset and platform. And dealing with whatever XR plugin I need, just adds development time, Oculus SDK, PicoXR SDK, SteamVR SDK, etc.
Flight sim people saw the dramatic performance improvements of Quad View DFR, which has been added to OpenXR as a standard. The problem is convincing larger sim companies like iRacing to adopt it because VR is a niche and the percentage of VR headsets with eye tracking is niche within that niche, so nothing happens.
@@markkovalcson7243 That is the problem. They should make standard and then throw money on game devs, to make great games for it. Now all the VR games are terrible garbage. Selling VR headsets on loss is not progress, if the games are shit. They just try them, and then quit, and never buy headset again.
Yea it would not make sense to kill of VR/AR due to how powerful and potential it contain than any devices. It is clearly the first 21st device that can surpass pc not another downgrade/sidegrade like the Laptop and Iphone. Plus ai companion, face tracking, hands tracking, body tracking, eye tracking works best and make sense in VR/AR than any flatscreen
I have trouble with the planes in DCS that don't have a pilot's body initially. I'm always much happier when the pilot is added. But some people turn that feature off and find it distracting. Go figure!
As of 2024. Meta Quest has been out selling Xbox, Nintendo, and Playstation. From all the sources I could find. Inside out body tracking is coming soon. Meta is looking to transform the market. Removing the need for phones and pc all together. They want it to eventually be a pair of glasses that can shift between vr and xr. It will be able to handle anything, including programming within the headset. Which I already do. He doesn't just want it to over take phones, but pc, watches ect. You won't need any of that. They are already reclaiming the money spent. Part of the inside out body tracking and never ending software way of life improvements are just a small fraction of that. Google is really the winner overall with most of them being Android based. Absolutely. VR is still quite in it's infancy.
Why do you only mention gaming? VR has so many other use cases (medical, tourism for people with no mobility, distant apartment visits, education, movies, industry etc.) and no goofy AR glasses will ever offer the level of immersion a VR headset offers.
Will AR take off in the consumer market without varifocal displays? I doubt it because without varifocal displays, vergence-accommodation conflict appears to strongly limit the optical depth at which virtual content may be displayed and, thus, it limits the application scenarios. Will the technology for varifocal displays improve within 10 or 20 years to enable affordable AR glasses for consumers? No one knows. And what's worse: no one knows what devices we will wear in 10 or 20 years that will compete with those hypothetical AR glasses. That doesn't mean that we won't see more commercial AR glasses for niche markets. The best example is the one that no one talks about: Epson Moverio smartglasses. Why? Because discussing real products would require discussing real challenges.
The Magic Leap AR glasses handle the varifocal aspect very well and the initial release was back in 2018. They got the idea right and created glasses with a puck, but the technology wasn't quite where they needed it to be and still isn't. They created a spatial computing device, but don't have the infrastructure to support it. The Magic Leap 2 was introduced in 2022, at 1536x1856 pixels per eye and still has a very narrow FOV but they still don't have the infrastructure.
@@markkovalcson7243 I've never tried Magic Leap AR glasses, thus, I have to take your word for it. Or the word of Karl Guttag about Magic Leap One: "The dual Focus Planes for vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC) are ridiculous [...] There are only two, they show only one at a time, and the user sees it jump when it changes." In the words of Palmer Lucky: "... as a Bi-Focal Display, [the ML1] only solves vergence-accommodation conflict in contrived demos that put all UI and environmental elements at one of two focus planes. Mismatch occurs at all other depths. In much the same way, a broken clock displays the correct time twice a day." My understanding is that the ML2 has only one focus plane but allows for dynamical adjustment of the focus distance. I guess in theory that could work well provided that it is fast enough and the glasses have perfectly working eye tracking and scene understanding. Do you know any reports about how well this works with ML2 in real-life environments?
@@forbym They draw the image on your eye rather than using a screen to display it on the lens which is a very different technology. It was "supposed" to feel very natural based on what I read about it and paint images at different focal ranges. I have no personal experience with it. The closest I came was a project for a customer of mine for customer support purposes where a master tech at headquarters would see what the on site technician was working on and would display schematics on the tech's glasses or would walk them through what they were doing. However, they backed off the project before it got off the ground.
MS has been on and off again about this. It would be nice if they had a consistent vision of what to do next. What's humorous is that right after Meta and Samsung pull back I see a story like the following: "Microsoft plans new mixed-reality VR headset to rival Apple Vision Pro - may run Windows apps via the cloud" "A new report suggests Microsoft has placed an order for "hundreds of thousands" of micro-OLED displays for a new VR headset." www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/microsoft-new-vr-headset-2026-hololens-3-williams-bay-windows-cloud-android
It's just fine staying small. Want EVERYONE plugged in? I don't think so. VR is profoundly disturbing to many (if you don't experience this, you don't know) as a powerful supplantation of real sensory experience. If you have a brain that navigates the shock and switch, good for you. But most game addicts out there - good on them if they can happily stay just a little bit in the real world and relatively grounded. As a society, we don't need swarming hordes of enthusiasts fleeing reality... which is exactly what would happen. Zuck tried it and thankfully failed. VR is just like any other substance abuse or vice that has plagued mankind to date. Its a dopamine direct line. The rate of improvement in the technology is fine. In fact, it's excellent considering the small demand. We can all exercise a little patience. Heck we've been doing exactly that for years, and it's a fine virtue to have.
Concerned about a "Ready Player One" dystopian future where people use VR to escape a miserable daily existence? There are already some people who have very little social interaction in real life and use VR Chat to socialize. They spend regular extended sessions in VR and it is a large part of their lives. I chatted with one guy who said he could never have a girlfriend because it would cut into his VR time. Comments like that do make you wonder.
All these games got vr mods portal 2 Half-Life Half-Life 2 (and sequels) Deep Rock Galactic Minecraft Jedi Academy Risk of Rain 2 Gamecube emulator (Dolphin VR) Metal: Hellsinger Valheim All modern Resident Evil games/remakes (except 4 which should be coming out soon) Dark Souls Remastered Cyberpunk 2077 Final Fantasy VII Remake Ghost Runner Elden Ring Ghostwire: Tokyo Horizon: Zero Dawn No One Lives Forever 2 Stray Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered Marvel’s Spider-Man Miles Morales Grounded Red Dead Redemption 2 (Old version) GTA V (Old version) RDR2 (Old version) Mafia Trilogy Remake (Old version) Left 4 Dead 2 Life is Strange: Before The Storm - Dawn VR Alien: Isolation - MotherVR The Stanley Parable - StanleyVR Valheim - VHVR Risk of Rain 2 - Drbibop The Outer Wilds - Nomai VR Deep Rock Galactic - VRG Firewatch - TwoForksVR GTFO - VR plugin Dead By Daylight (Private Server) Hogwarts Legacy Mirror 2: Project X Satisfactory It Takes Two STAR WARS Jedi: Fallen Order Stray Squad Astroneer Borderlands 3 Mordhau Ready Or Not SCUM Conan Exiles The Isle Tekken 7 eFootball 2023 Poppy Playtime Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice OUTRIDERS Dragon Ball FighterZ Five Nights at Freddy's: Security Breach Grounded Days Gone Remnant From The Ashes State of Decay 2 Ghostrunner Code Vein Little Nightmares Back 4 Blood Brick Rigs Bright Memory: Infinite Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot What Remains of Edith Finch Life is Strange 2 Foxhole ACE COMBAT 7: SKIES UNKNOWN GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- The Callisto Protocol Medieval Dynasty Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night Remnant II ENDER LILIES Little Nightmares II Tales of Arise 死寂（Deathly Stillness） One-armed cook Hydroneer ABZÛ FPS Chess Aliens: Fireteam Elite GEARS 5 PAYDAY 3 Tropico 6 The Ascent Gas Station Simulator Atomic Heart Dark Deception Ground Branch Sword Art Online: Fatal Bullet Vampyr Demon Slayer -Kimetsu no Yaiba- The Hinokami Chronicles Hi-Fi RUSH Tribes of Midgard Final Fantasy VII Remake: Intergrade Hatred Witch It Sword and Fairy 7 Omega Strikers Biomutant The Day Before SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom - Rehydrated Scarlet Nexus Subverse We Happy Few Dark and Light Choo-Choo Charles Gotham Knights Terminator Resistance Octopath Traveler Torchlight 3 Spyro Reignited Trilogy Darksiders III Ghostwire: Tokyo Life is Strange: True Colors Session: Skate Sim Operation: Harsh Doorstop High On Life BPM: Bullets Per Minute Marauders Ruiner Chernobylite Enhanced Edition POSTAL 4: No Regerts Xuan-Yuan Sword VII Maneater Darksiders Genesis Empires of the Undergrowth Tiny Tina's Wonderland MechWarrior 5 SOULCALIBUR VI Orcs Must Die! 3 Kena: Bridge Of Spirits Marvel's Midnight Suns Call of Cthulhu Scorn The Forgotten City Psychonauts 2 Destroy All Humans! Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 Slender: The Arrival Torchlight: Infinite The Beast Inside Six Days in Fallujah The Vagrant Space Hulk: Deathwing - Enhanced Edition Aliens: Dark Descent Minecraft Dungeons Tower of Fantasy Ride 4 Octopath Traveler II Azur Lane: Crosswave Wandering Sword Fernbus Simulator Visage Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey Predecessor Gears Tactics DRAGON QUEST® XI S: Echoes of an Elusive Age
The problem is that i don't know how to run those mods. If i don't know then 99% of people with a VR headset don't know. It's not user friendly if the average person doesn't know these things. So it will remain niche until VR gets its act together and makes things easier.
I just had a look for a setup guide for UEVR mods. Found one on youtube by Beardo Banjo. It's a 26 minute long video just on how to set it up. What a joke. This kind of thing is why VR continues to fail.
@@markkovalcson7243 it should have been a home run. It pains me to say bc I preordered the first day available but they shipped without the streaming kit so I cant even try dp, the streaming app is spotty even using the dedicated wifi I use for my pico, the lenses aren't as good as my g2 but they should be more clear..maybe resolution from the streaming app being restricted? idk, ill keep it till the end of the return period hopefully they can improve, i'm rooting for them!
This was a really depressing video. I fall into the slightly higher end market for VR. I'm willing to pay around 1K for a headset. My G2 is arguably better than a Quest 3, so that feels at best like a side grade. The Crystal light lost too many features I wanted from the original Crystal, which hasn't dropped in price(and isn't available anyway!) I guess I'm all in on praying for Deckard to be a real thing?
Sorry about that! VR headsets are currently an exercise in picking your priorities and where you will make compromises. If they had made a Crystal with fixed at the factory lenses and without the onboard processing/battery etc and didn't saddle it with a legacy oversized for what was in it housing, it would have done better. But they obviously had left over housings or tooling they needed to amortize. The right lenses weren't ready when they hit production so having lenses they could replace when the lenses were ready gave them more wiggle room in their perpetual dash to production and last minute changes they are now known for. Still after all that I know a number of people who love their Crystals. Once again it's all about personal priorities.
@@markkovalcson7243 Hey Mark, Thanks for the activity in the comments section. As my primary use is Sims, the demanding requirements seem to really indicated the eye tracking is a must have for DFR. MSFS 2024 looks like it's included and with DCS I can barely max out the settings in my G2 with a 4090(with much tinkering, and heavy use of FFR.) To use the 35ppd screens DOF is a must, unless you have access to a 6090. I think it was a huge miss for Pimax to release the Light and not include it. Everyone is saying how much they love their Light's, and it works great at 70% resolution. If I do my math that's a Reverb G2, albeit with better lenses.
@@l8knight845 Sounds right. For DCS and higher resolution headsets eye tracking and Quad View DFR is a godsend! 60%+ fps improvements. Some say nearly 90% improvements. Combined with Eagle Dynamics improving multi-core support and overall it is much better. For the rest OpenXR DFR does little. I get "maybe" a 10% fps improvement for iRacing. I've heard some say they get as high as 25% for ACC, but ACC is really poorly optimized for VR. I think 10-15% is about all you will see for most titles that work decent in VR to begin with.
@@markkovalcson7243 Hey Mark, I think that DFR is required future proofing for high resolution gaming. I'm holding out to see if the Crystal Pro drops at the price point currently occupied by the original Crystal. If so that will be my next headset! Have a great day, thanks again for the good watch!
@@markkovalcson7243 okay because it made me click away and not wanna watch the video, I have a bose speaker and my computer has no EQ your voice seemed too bassy just not a fan of that although I'm not an expert on sound it just doesnt sound good to me, reminds me of radio which I hate
@@luisbarragan6495 I didn't add any equalization to my voice. I recorded 32bit audio with my Rode Pro wireless lav. When editing I'm running decent self amped monitor speakers with ribbon tweeters that have decent low end punch and didn't notice anything wrong. I'll watch it on my surround system with 4,000W subwoofer and see if I notice anything. It's hard to adjust for something I'm not noticing.
You're delusional if you think Meta is loosing money with VR. It is true that they sell their headsets at a massive loss but they're not a VR company they're a data mining company and they profit from the data they gather from users it's very simple.
Meta as a company is soundly in the black! "Meta Platforms has a market cap or net worth of $1.47 trillion as of October 23, 2024" They haven't been able to leverage data mining from VR very well to this point. "Meta's first quarter results of 2024 reveal that Reality Labs, the company's business and research unit that develops and produces VR headsets like the Meta Quest 3, made $440 million, a 30% increase attributed to Quest headset sales. Reality Labs' expenses, however, were an eye-watering $4.3 billion." finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-spent-4-3-billion-162942740.html
Oh I see now - they dont make Quest 3 with display port - since they sell it at a loss - why would the make a headset for a simmer who would not waste money in their store.-
I do agree VR is dead end due to small adoption rate, the big games arent coming. People need to stop coping, there is no breakthrough coming, VR already lost to mobile before the race even started.
I think dead is too strong a word. VR didn't meet expectations and didn't become adopted by the masses, but it does have a smaller group of enthusiasts that it serves well. For this group it is definitely not dead. It is just more expensive than they would like.
@@markkovalcson7243 By standard of a gaming console its dead, despite pushing a lot of units of quest the retention rate is abysmal. Even if headsets will keep rolling out without the software its pointless, will become a very niche hobby.
@@googleslocik VR is a niche market. That is the whole point. Once mass adoption didn't happen, PC VR became an enthusiast only market. Standalone VR gets more penetration, but as you said, how much retention there is after the sale is debatable.
You're saying this just as several big games like Batman Arkham Shadow are releasing this season. The size of these VR games and the rate that they are coming is increasing over time. Yes, they're still not as big as flat gaming. But the trend is bigger and better over time.
@@markkovalcson7243 I have 2 friends who made VR games for quest, complete failures sales wise, the retention rate is much worse than people expect even. Also yeah, its already niche, and i expect the current size is what it will stay at.
why do we have controllers at all ? Because game makers wanted a Microsoft pc vr "controller" ,, so four buttons two joysticks & trigger's controllers add cost to make & fix,,, the future is ,,, no controllers ,,, & hand tracking of some sort
Apple seems to agree with you and the AVP has no hand controllers. I also agree that tactile feedback can be important to game play. Even the little rumble motors letting you know something is happening add to the experience. If you look at Xplane12 it has support for using your hand controllers in place of actual flight controls. For many that works well. Personally I like a physical stick, throttle or collective and pedals, but that adds many more controls to the mix.
The future is both. Hand tracking is better for some use cases, controllers are better for other use cases. What we're going to see is ultimately being able to mix and match them at will. And we're also going to see more specialized controllers.
The 1st big mistake an AR glasses company can make is *Absence of built-in 9 DOF IMU sensor* in that God damn glasses. 😅 2nd big mistake an AR glasses company can make is *proprietary connectors, data access lockdown and obscure protocols* (probably with crippled API & SDK too 😥). The 3rd big mistake an AR glasses company can make is *hardly any easy way to have continuous Cellular network access* (eSIM will do, tiny SIM cards also suffice) for these AR glasses. Yes, Viture, Xreal, Rokid, Ray Neo, TCL all made the above mistake(s) which make dev really hard to implement *Real* AR functions on these glasses. Most AR glasses are simply a *glorified portable mini-screen* while charging customers for the *“AR premium” tag* . In fact, they are not AR glasses, they are crippled phone screen replacements. 😆 As for VR, mistakes such as no eye-tracking, over reliance on inside-out tracking (SLAM est. isn't precise enough and more error prone) are two big ones. Not using low-persistence (micro- or not) OLED *may be* one. Look at your mobile phones, most are AMOLED screens nowadays, IPS panels are rarely seen. For energy efficiency, users' eye cares and individually lit pixels' sake, just put OLED into HMDs and forget IPS or mini-LED panels (the screens are too close to your eyes after all).
You tell em'! But seriously eye tracking is currently of very little value unless you play DCS and have QuadView DFR, or want an avatar with eye control. Otherwise DFR is almost not worth the effort because it just doesn't buy much of a performance improvement "currently" and we don't have any good PCVR based eye navigation like the AVP does. We've seen what GOOD DFR can do for a game, but even the large sim houses with large budgets are not willing to implement it. I'll leave it there because I think there is a lot of diversity in the market because people have such different priorities and right and wrong can be more grey than black and white.
@@markkovalcson7243 Eye tracking is intended to use in foveated rendering. Even Quest 3 doesn't utilize all the 22xx Pixel resolution due to weakness in mobile GPU and rendering efficiency in desktop ones. Making full use of dual 2.2k x 2k screens isn't feasible at 90+ Hz with slightly complex scene/long draw distance (e.g. flight sim). The actual Render resolution in-game is usually ~1680 x 1440 (per eye) and scale up with shader before projecting onto final viewport to *fake rendering at 2.2K resolution with steady 90fps* . So, what you see in Q3 or HMD with higher res panel don't look "proper" or as detailed as it should be. Scaling cut away too much scene details right before projection. No clever algorithm can help this (said DLSS, FSR) from happening. So, eye tracking + foveated rendering is a must if dev really want to impl *proper* dual viewport rendering with the said panel spec, not a trimmed down one.
@@Sacred-Lotus What if DFR is only giving you a 15% increase in performance? Is that enough to matter? The only title I have that really benefits from DFR is DCS, but it has a far more efficient Quad View DFR support that no other title has right now except Pavlov. So while I absolutely agree that a good DFR model would benefit EVERYONE. There are not enough headsets with eye tracking for software developers to add support. I understand that makes this a chicken/egg issue. But as fast as headsets are replaced with new models banking on decent DFR support to be adopted while a headset is in production is pretty iffy and Meta won't add the cost to each unit even if they know how to implement it. They are pushing really hard to keep a low price point to drive volume and market dominance.
