This isn't a project that benefits from any of Facebooks strengths - game development companies are much better positioned to make compelling social VR experiences like this.

"Metaverses" in general are a cool 80s sci-fi novel concept. But they're just video game environments with better-than-typical communication features - hyping them up with piles of marketing and betting the farm on your specific one being successful seems like an incredibly poor business move.

I don't think that's true. Game developer company culture is heavily oriented towards making and selling products to consumers. They know how to make games people will pay for, and the entire business and culture revolves around that.

With Meta and other ad-driven companies, the people aren't the consumers, they're the product. The whole incentive structure and architecture of the company is fundamentally different. Think about how a company like Facebook or Google has an entire army of sales people and enormous apps like AdWords and Facebook Ads Manager that are how the company actually makes money. Game companies don't have that kind of stuff.

What they have is a bunch of programmers who know 3D rendering and networking. But Meta can simply hire those people—and game devs are used to bouncing around every couple of years—and they are. Several of my old EA coworkers are at Meta know working on it.

I cant understand why people think a consumer-hostile company would be able to improve the experience enough to reach broader audiences.

People will try it for an hour or two when they boot up their oculus. Realize being in a room of shouting tweens is not fun, and then never try it again.

I'd like to take advantage of this moment to share furries making fun of Metaverse, on VRChat (1m 30s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGmlhHvm-Tc

Game companies haven't been stuck in the 2000s. Nowadays they are legitimate media businesses. Just look at what Riot did with Arcane, or Epic with Travis Scott's Fortnite concert. That actually felt metaverse-ish compared to the geriatric experience of Facebook's VR games.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYeFAlVC8qU)

If you look at China its even more clear that game companies are way beyond just making games. Moving into ads isn't that hard, delivering actual content and really understanding young people very much is.

FB is really noncommittal about what a metaverse product would even be, which can be interpreted either as secrecy... or they just don't know themselves. From the little we've seen (notable that it's 100% CGI concept reels and 0% anything concrete) it really does seem like just social spaces.

One thing the game studios have figured out is that simple chat is insufficient - Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite have all developed genuine social spaces that center around some activity. FB's metaverse concept seems to have no unifying purpose and lacks some compelling purpose that the games do. To the extent these necessary unifying activities are discussed it's usually hand-waved away as something users themselves will concoct.

More generally, it seems that FB wants to be the substrate of a new social network - but it's not clear to me that that's what anyone wants? What's the role of FB as a platform when "VR socialization" can just be apps on a device - in which case FB's role is solely that of a device/OS vendor, which clearly is insufficient for their ambitions? What does FB bring to the table that Roblox, Fortnite, Minecraft, etc, would care about?

If socializing in VR is going to be a thing (big if, but let's assume for a second), why would I go to FB? Why would I not directly go to any number of apps and vendors who have created focused products? I don't need a single unifying platform when I can just... install a number of different ones?

1. Identity management 2. Network management

But then realistically, are these really pain points?

Interestingly, by revenue Apple is more of a one-trick pony than Facebook. iPhone sales are fully half their revenue, and almost all of their software income is totally dependent on iPhones as well. Meanwhile at Meta, Instagram revenue is roughly equal to Facebook revenue.

OP wanted to use "cool" companies as examples but the actually diversified giants are Microsoft and Amazon.

Must be why they paid Apple $15B last year to be default search on Safari, a mob fee that increases by the year.

Meanwhile Facebook is "just" an app. It's pure software, and doesn't have the same ecosystem tie in. It's not a platform in the way that android/ios/windows are. Starting a new social network is much cheaper than creating a new mobile platform.

I fundamentally don’t think FB can innovate. And I don’t think the regulatory situation will allow them to continue acquiring to grow.

An example of this changing landscape is FB failed attempt to acquire Giphy. Can FB survive if they are forced to compete and innovate on their own? I doubt it.

And they have steadily introduced new revenue streams such as Watch, Music, TV+. Services is where it is at.

a similar pattern is happening on instagram although to a lesser degree

the metaverse bet is a good one to try and make something new where the value requires you to be on the fb platform. we will see if it works. i personally don’t see it going anywhere

and it's an odd bet.

Yes, there are issues to work out with the headbands, weight, general FPS and battery life, but I finally _get_ it. The amount of badassery you feel as you shoot headcrabs and combine in Half Life: Alyx is hard to describe in words.

Maybe that's not Metaverse persay (is that like, VR chat or something?), but it is the equipment that Facebook is selling, and they've got their own set of games that're pretty fun too.

I do think it's amazing - Superhot is one of the best games I've ever played. But I get it - I don't know how to explain, but it seems like work to use it.

1. A lot of people saying this are just older and with less free time. Do you still play video games a lot? I think the question is in part whether VR can engage kids for as long as video games do.

2. The headsets are still too early. Wireless latency is almost there, but not quite. The headsets are too heavy. I think the Quest 4 or 5 are going to be so vastly better that users won’t mind staying in VR for longer, and won’t get bored of it.

3. Content, content, content. Alyx is awesome, but there needs to be 10 of those per year. And with better headsets, and an ever expanding user base, I think content will continue to explode.

I'm a PC gamer and have a very capable PC but haven't bought any VR equipment because I don't know what I'd play.

The issue is probably that I'm not looking for an excuse to buy a headset, I'm waiting for a reason. I don't seek out information for VR and none of it is getting through to me.

I felt incredibly lame shooting the headcrabs in half life alyx. They were fat and slow, and when I felt like they were going to hit me I tapped the left stick twice to teleport 20m away while they waddled towards me hopelessly. When they hit me, I just kind of shrugged because the experience of being hit in VR is so uninteresting. A lot of the times I would just be annoyed that aiming at a headcrab 10m was hard so I just waited for it to fall close to me then shoot it at point blank range 4 times.

In resident evil 4 (which is now vr but I've no experience with it) the zombies did this thing where they ran at you really fast, but when they got close, they walked slowly. This was because you had low mobility when aiming, so the enemies had to play nice to give you a chance. Half Life Alyx felt like that but way more so. Everything coddled you to the point of seriously breaking immersion for me.

Electric dog? Warns you that it's going to zap a path for like 10 seconds before doing anything.

Machine gunner guy? Shoots for 10 seconds then sits still for another 5 in plain sight while reloading.

Normal combine guys? Mostly just standing out in the open or failing to use cover effectively so you can casually snipe their weak spot.

Felt to me like a poorly curated house of dead line gun game.

Like you say, there are some issues with the tech, but they’ll be resolved in time, and it’s clear that this is the future of gaming at least, and maybe much of social media/virtual interaction.

VR is not a daily use experience for me, and I assume for a lot of consumers, but it is still amazing.

I was into Pokerstars VR for a while but interacting with people through the microphone made me realize I don't really enjoy talking to strangers from around the country while playing poker.

Kind of!

I was developing neck pain from Pokerstars - it's not exactly table tennis. On the other hand, Moss was a very cool game but I found it annoying on my joints to reach under virtual corners and even get on all fours to look under something. Amazingly cool concept, but it's not exactly physical therapy after a computer posture.

I think it will take off when the gear becomes slim and light - like a much newer generation of glasses. Something that as far as I know is still in the realm of sci-fi - but not far.

I use it daily for HIIT workouts, and I use it to spend time with family and friends who are either far away or busy with life i.e. kids. It's way better than FaceTime or Zoom.

In addition to Beat Saber, you might want to check out games like Until You Fall and SynthRiders.

I've lost 20 lbs playing video games.

I don't believe for a moment that it'll extend into work interactions. Maybe family visiting type experiences, again for the subset that can enjoy the headset setup.

That said, when I try my hardest to think objectively about the future of work, I think VR is going to be everywhere.

Workers going into factories will become exceedingly rare. The cost of humans is high both from a safety and headcount perspective, and more and more of manufacturing pipelines are becoming automated end-to-end. Service repairs will likely happen remotely and only require humans to be onsite if absolutely necessary in the future. It's good for business.

There is a ton on "dark factories" to be found online. Also, there are many startups that have significant traction which are bridging these two worlds via AR:

https://www.mirareality.com/

When it comes to knowledge work, I think anywhere where you have to work with visuals will become a predominant VR stomping ground. If you need to be working with 3D models (lots of engineering + manufacturing) or flat UIs (being able to point and pan and modify is more natural with hand gestures), VR will likely win out. I also think VR will create a space for completely new ways of constructing software architecture. This could be a bridge to creating architectures visually for the first time (want to define a service that automagically becomes a kubernetes service and node on the backend? create a box here and give it some parameters!). The interactivity of this kind of build feels very natural, and it's how we actually already do things in a more limited 2d context. My guess is the killer feature here with VR is the immersiveness allowing for better synchronous collboration.

I could be totally wrong about this stuff, but I think a lot of our lives will change with VR. There are some serious hurdles we need to get over, most notably form factor, weight, and nausea. I feel like these are solvable problems, but honestly that's mostly a hunch more than anything. Would love to hear from others who know more than me!

The iPad is a fantastic device, and it definitely changed the way many people use computers. People use them for all sorts of things, because they feature properties that make them more comfortable for plenty of work applications.

I'd argue however they haven't had the significant, "post-PC" impact people used to believe they'd have. I remember the narrative back then was predicting they would change the way most people interacted with computers, and PCs would stick around "like trucks" just for the "heavy" or specific jobs for which they'd the absolutely required.

What I've seen instead is that iPads (and all tablets really) act mostly as a utility or compliment, and when I had one I only casually used it for light tasks when my computer was out of reach or battery.

So in my case, I don't doubt a lot of places will have VR headsets for work, but I still don't think people will consider them indispensable except for very specific applications. I think we'll keep seeing more remote service repairs, for example, but not that workers going into factories will become exceedingly rare— only less extraordinary. I think it's probable VR will become as common for 3D artists as tablets are for 2D artists, but don't necessarily think it'll spill out into software architecture or other keyboard-centric applications like that.

In summary, I think VR will become more commonplace and be a fantastic tool in many contexts, but I don't think at the moment that it will signify a significant paradigm shift in most work contexts.

I agree with the other commenter that people are going to keep showing up in factories and repair shops, but there may be a decent sized niche of genuine utility.

Do us a favor: stay independent and stay interesting. Don't get acquired by Zuck. Maybe the MechE's in my family will use your stuff one day.

I do agree it's highly probable that VR becomes a utility until we have another leap in technology (contact-lens form factor?). We shall see!

> Do us a favor: stay independent and stay interesting. Don't get acquired by Zuck. Maybe the MechE's in my family will use your stuff one day.

Thank you I really appreciate this compliment. :) My father is actually a MechE so this comment hits close to home. My background is in materials science as well as computer science. After this company, I think I'll go back to my roots in more physics, chemistry and biology and try to do something within bioengineering. Then again, who knows. I feel, as I get older, the only thing that's certain is that I have no idea what I'll value in 2-3 more years, and I think that's a good thing!

Hope you and your loved ones are doing well internet friend.

They plan on making it up via game sales in the Oculus Rift Store, and services. Same as what Sony did with the PS4 (which was quite successful). I see "Quest Season Passes" in VR's future.

At 1440p and above resolution isn't there yet and pushing multiple monitors through to the headset is still (to my knowledge) not practical. The remote desktop-like apps I've tried only do a single monitor.

I like the bet that Quest 2 made with making the headset do all the processing, but it fails for tasks like this.

I think eventually we'll get a headset where working in VR becomes practical and affordable, but we're not there yet. Maybe apple pulls off a Gear-VR-like setup where you plonk your phone in front of some lenses on your face. But AFAIK anything better than the Quest 2 is substantially more expensive.

My wild guess is that practical work VR is 2-3 years away. Meta's next headset iteration might do it + price drops.

As clunky an experience you describe, the rest were far far worse.

VR is a cool niche experience, but the friction is still far too high for me. I wear glasses, and it needs to be only slightly more friction than that. Whether AR or VR, I don't much even care, as software experiences will adapt to the hardware at some point.

Lately I've been sinking time into:

Half-Life Alyx

I Expect You To Die (and its sequel)

The Climb (and eventually its sequel, I assume)

Creed

- Half Life: Alyx

- Lucky's Tale

- Beat Saber

- Thumper

That being said, Quest 2 uses a USB-C cable that is quite a bit lighter and easier to manage than the Oculus' HDMI cable.

Porn companies and sex workers will make money in VR environments, whether mainstream companies can remains to be seen.

I should note that I only play multiplayer experiences with PCVR because I'm afraid of getting banned for whatever reason and having my headset bricked. That's one area I'm worried about, but it's not related to the hardware/technology.

How so? Revenue is up and there's more users. What decline are you referring to?

People have expressed Facebook being passe or not cool for a decade now. They keep growing anyway.

If you mean the data mining and trading, I wouldn't believe that for a second. Sure, it can't go on so openly and monopolised like before, but there is a huge industry built on it already, each new digital service opening up opportunities for a bit of side income. Facebook was an easy target to aim at - but there's your webshop, food delivery service, electricity supplier in the line.

Unless Zuck can pull a Bezos with convincing investors, Meta's stock will be in trouble for a few years until their metaverse division starts becoming profitable; which will be at least a decade if they're focused on growth.

Google and Microsoft have had the same business model forever .

Microsoft has Xbox, Office, Azure, etc.

Google has Android, Google Workplace, GCP, etc.

When you diversify your income streams you add more. It doesn't mean you get rid of your breadwinner.

Facebook's main model seems to becoming illegal and/or not viable via a tech perspective.

Alphabet is more than 80% advertising: https://searchengineland.com/google-q4-2021-earnings-379735 . They are good at skewing how they are perceived but they are very close to being a one-business company. Not defending Facebook, but Google is not much better.

But yes, Google’s acquisition of Doubleclick and investment in video through YouTube has allowed them to capture the publisher and buyer side of much of the open web (and use the data to cut out competition - cf. Project Bernanke)

Edit: sure, it's true that they put ads on everything, from YouTube videos to Gmail mailboxes, but that's not comparable to the level of diversification that MSFT or AMZN have IMHO.

But their business models are not same at all, nobody is valuing MS at trillions of dollars for its Windows OS licencing business. In the last 20 years MS has diversifyer into gaming and cloud successfull that are a big chunk of its current business and future growth, even with older products like Office they successfully pivoted to O365 and converted it to a recurring revenue stream.

Amazon is making more money from AWS than retail and evolved a lot as a company.

If the metaverse gamble works Facebook could be looked on as a similar success but until then their growth is risky

Google is probably screwed if search and ads go under, but they seem to be running an interesting experiment on how low quality their search results can get before they lose marketshare...