About 14 million VR headsets have been sold worldwide. That puts it about on par with the NES in the late 80s. I choose to forgive the VR market for not immediately being as successful as the mature gaming market. A lot of things were being done in the early 90s that showed just how little we really understood digital entertainment. It'll take tech improvement and product experimentation combined to really get VR to come into its own. That'll take continued investment on every front. We won't get there by magic.
Comparing them with the full lifecycle of the NES sales instead of its first 5 years is not a proper comparison.
Lots of enthusiasts did buy the Oculus DK1 and DK2 Rifts, but CV1 was the first time it was actually available in stores and marketed as being ready for consumer use.
At a more tactical level, such as beats, storyboarding, and even UX research...there's still a lot of experimentation when it comes to what works and what doesn't for storytellers. If you tell an experienced director to make an action movie, there's a lot of well understood techniques they can lean on to tell good story. So far, our experiences show that a lot of that flies out the window with VR unless you spend all your energy trying to encourage your user to frame the shot the same way a director wants you to. However, if you do that, you aren't really using VR anymore.
The problems that constrain story length are really a problem because you can only give story so much depth in 15 minutes...and if you don't have the opportunity to figure out how to tell a story with nuance, you won't learn how to get nuance right. VR has no nuance at the moment.
The indie game scene on Steam VR is thriving and these experiments in vr experiences will yield future content and entertainment breakthroughs. The groundwork, at least, has finally begun.
Take "Verification of Competence" activities used to on-board and train people who use specific plant/machinery. If you want to work on a mine driving a large truck, you'll usually have to do a virtual test to show your prospective employer that you can efficiently pilot $500,000 worth of machinery.
Health and safety training in complex plants. Run simulations on an immersive virtual model, rather than sitting at a computer screen.
Train driver training. Drivers need to do a particular number of trips to learn the route (accelerating and braking for turns, stations etc) this can be in field or virtual but required to ensure safety.
B2B++ B2C--
Some are, others are going all in and it's just getting good. Compare Lone Echo to launch experiences, it's a completely different experience. Not to mention Fallout VR and Skyrim VR launched this year.
> The VR virtual worlds are a disaster
Go on YouTube and search for VR Chat, check out the number of videos and view counts. VR Might not be mainstream yet and I don't believe it will be until stand alone headsets drop but it's naive to write it off just yet.
I want something like that, I bought the old Xiaomi headset (basically a Google Cardboard) and I can't run Netflix on it (which was what I wanted them for :( )
The Standalone Xiaomi one does seem to run Netflix though :)
Why do you think that is an indicator of success? VR has plenty of hype; marketing is not the issue. There are plenty of people who are interested in watching a video on YouTube that won't buy a headset.
Because this is what people in the video game industry are literally looking at as a gauge of success.
Just look how much they court youtubers and streamers. Games are literally built around them in 2018.
(Note, I don’t like that this is true but the sad fact is that it is true)
It's not (as it stands) going to be adopted as the media-platform of choice for consuming mass amounts of netflix and marvel movies, but there's way more niches to make it a viable go-to solution for many problems.
VR goggles are the opposite of laziness for me.
Too much effort required to set everything up. Why do that much work for little reward if I can just sit back in my couch with a remote and play a game?
> Too much effort required to set everything up.
Which is why Oculus Go is being a (moderate) success. It's quick and easy to grab and use. It has its problems, sure, lack of 6dof in headset and controller, and lack of content, but we'll get there soon I think.
As an example, I'm not sure if playing Civilization 6 in VR would be so earth shattering that I'd go through the effort (though who knows?). On the other hand, for a game like Elite: Dangerous, where essentially it's all about immersion in the experience of flying a spaceship, VR could / can be awesome. Even a simple head-tracking device can transform the setting from "hey, I'm playing a game here" to "hey, I'm sitting in a space ship here".
In any case, I think it's early to say what's a dead end. As you say, there are no killer apps yet. Even VR porn is still at a demo stage. It all might be a dead end, if you want to go on existence proof alone.
Honestly, I was expecting one of the VR platforms to attract simple applications/games. Resolution doesn't matter much if you're looking at stick figures.
If big, epic content is what it will take to get VR to that "real product" stage then I think the platforms will have to produce it. I could imagine "canned" content similar to old Imax movies working well, but that is not a 2 guys and a camera type of job. Who would put up that kind of money, for such a small audience, when all the first mover benefits go to the platforms.
What a lot of people don't see are the iconoclastic milestones that are coming up, that will transform the entire domain in terms of market acceptance and saturation.
Foveated rendering is the first of those. Hand-finger tracking (e.g. a glove interface) is the second.
These technologies are not science fiction, we know they are coming out since lab prototypes already exist. Moreover, impact-wise, these technologies are not really incremental improvements but complete game changers (thus iconoclastic). The VR landscape in 5 years will look completely different to today.
The Second Life continuations aren't the best examples to measure VR's traction. I'd look at user re-engagement of apps on the level of Bigscreen, Rec Room, Beat Saber, Google Earth. Those apps get people back into the headset and capable of logging 1000+ hour playtimes. Once high-end capabilities (6DoF head / hands) meets convenient form factor (standalone, wireless), I expect to see VR gain wider traction.
I just don't want to wear VR stuff I'd rather get something like from lawnmower man or something without all this stuff strapped to me. Is anyone doing anything like that?
I certainly don't want to be wearing any kind of apparatus that distinguishes me from a normal individual.
If we do have brain implants I don't want advertising and tracking.
I would pay for a direct internet connection to my head only if I know it is anonymous and I control it.
VR in its current state is pretty lame if you like the real world too... imho; and it isn't going to take increased resolution to fix it.
It's been five years since the Oculus Rift DK1 appeared, and there's still no killer app. Game developers are pulling back from VR.[1][2] The VR virtual worlds are a disaster. Sansar has about 50 (fifty) concurrent users. SineSpace and High Fidelity have similar numbers.
VR goggles are cool for about an hour, and in the closet in a month.
The technology is coming along just fine, but that's not the problem.
[1] https://www.gq.com/story/is-vr-gaming-over-before-it-even-st... [2] https://mashable.com/2018/01/24/virtual-reality-gaming-loser...