Are smart glasses and AR headsets the "next big thing"?

[MEJHarrison]

It’s not about the quality of the headset, it’s the whole thing taken together.

It's not that your information is wrong so much as it's out of date. If you plan to go the PC route to VR, everything you said is still true to some degree.

However, the Oculus / Meta Quest 2 is a different beast and has changed things considerably. It comes in two versions, the 128GB for $300 and 256GB for $400. And that's it for the hardware. A person could get into VR today for as little as $300.

As for the complicated setup, the Quest 2 is completely stand-alone. No PC is required (I'm a Mac guy and don't even have a PC). No base stations. No setup. No wires or cables. It's a completely self-contained solution.

Some games do need a lot of space, but most can be done just fine in a tiny space. I play in my office usually. I have three games I play standing (Beat Saber, Mini Golf and Bowling), and just about all the rest of my games can be played sitting in my chair (although you could stand). I have one game that needs 6'x6'. I have to play that in the living room because my office just can't cut it. Out of dozens of games, that's the only one I can't play comfortably in my tiny little space.

Motion sickness is a thing. But most people get over it in a few days. They call it getting your VR legs. For me it wasn't so much motion sickness. I've never had that problem. For me it was heights. The first time I was playing a game and needed to cross a giant chasm, I literally said "oh hell no!", quit the game and got back to it the next day. Now that I've been playing for months, I wouldn't even think about it. But it was too real at first.

Finally, if a person does happen to have a PC that is capable of PCVR, then they can also do that either wired or wirelessly with the Quest. So you can have the best of both worlds.

A lot has changed since 2019.

 

[rdrr]

Other than the novelty of trying AR glasses, do we really want that in our society? Imagine the headaches of someone with AR glasses driving, distracted walking and injuring (sometimes seriously) yourself or others?

Also I can see this as another avenue for Ads to be constantly streamed in our life. I think to the movie Ready Player One, where IOI was planning on streaming Ads to 80% of the usable screen.

 

[DT]

As some of you may know (I posted some product shots in @Renzatic's 3Dness thread ...) , I was involved in AR/VR development for a few years back ~2016, an old partner brought me into his new company, we did some pretty neat product design of our own for the VR market, and provided some scale/consulting in the AR space with a few moderate sized players in the industry.

Yet again, there was a big swell of interest, that ultimately had kind of lackluster consumer adoption, particularly in the AR space. VR has done decent in the entertainment sector, particularly games, I think the last numbers I saw for PlayStation VR was like 5M units, Oculus ~10M. No world changing use cases, just people shitting their pants playing Resident Evil (it's pretty f***ing cool).

AR has the market for productivity, especially in training, collaborative visualization (medical/engineering), and it's in some use there. The current major consumer use case seems to be seeing what an Ikea table looks like in your living room One company I worked with was trying to create a new computing paradigm, but the gear was expensive, clunky, and lacked precision. Do you really need an virtualized spreadsheet floating over your desk - and using your hands to interact - when the same thing on screen with a mouse is faster, more precise, and doesn't require a big headset.

It's a little bit of the "Answer to a question no one asked", and not per the Jobs (aka Gretzky) quote, i.e., having a bunch of music with you is a simple story, it taps into a really compelling desire, even though people didn't realize they it. AR makes a hard to justify leap from our current tech, and I'd say even smart watches have filled a more logical gap than VR glasses (both in functionality and usability).

 

[MEJHarrison]

Other than the novelty of trying AR glasses, do we really want that in our society? Imagine the headaches of someone with AR glasses driving, distracted walking and injuring (sometimes seriously) yourself or others?

There's plenty to worry about. Distracted walking isn't one of them (in my opinion). First, it seems like it would be better than walking and looking at your phone. And second, if you can watch a movie with subtitles, you ought to be able to walk down a street with subtitles.

 

[MEJHarrison]

No world changing use cases, just people shitting their pants playing Resident Evil (it's pretty f***ing cool).

It's not that great. After you've beaten the game 8 times, it gets a bit old.

 

[Nycturne]

Yet again, there was a big swell of interest, that ultimately had kind of lackluster consumer adoption, particularly in the AR space. VR has done decent in the entertainment sector, particularly games, I think the last numbers I saw for PlayStation VR was like 5M units, Oculus ~10M. No world changing use cases, just people shitting their pants playing Resident Evil (it's pretty f***ing cool).

AR has the market for productivity, especially in training, collaborative visualization (medical/engineering), and it's in some use there. The current major consumer use case seems to be seeing what an Ikea table looks like in your living room One company I worked with was trying to create a new computing paradigm, but the gear was expensive, clunky, and lacked precision. Do you really need an virtualized spreadsheet floating over your desk - and using your hands to interact - when the same thing on screen with a mouse is faster, more precise, and doesn't require a big headset.

It's a little bit of the "Answer to a question no one asked", and not per the Jobs (aka Gretzky) quote, i.e., having a bunch of music with you is a simple story, it taps into a really compelling desire, even though people didn't realize they it. AR makes a hard to justify leap from our current tech, and I'd say even smart watches have filled a more logical gap than VR glasses (both in functionality and usability).

And the bolded is the future expectation I have of VR. The fact that it provides something that cannot be had easily with other technology is the key factor that will keep it chugging along, but there needs to be an iPhone/Android revolution in the space to break it out of where it currently lives. The Kinect hit 24M units in 3 years (2013) and still got canned in the end, so who knows which way things will go, really. The fact that it's not an evolution, but rather a separate thing that competes for a slice of folk's budget that could go towards a PC/PS/Xbox/Switch/Smartphone and fulfill a very similar desire works against it.

And yeah, on the AR front, outside of a couple specific niches, the biggest wins can be had on devices people already have, and in some ways is cheaper and easier to make available to many more users that way.

It's not that your information is wrong so much as it's out of date. If you plan to go the PC route to VR, everything you said is still true to some degree.

However, the Oculus / Meta Quest 2 is a different beast and has changed things considerably. It comes in two versions, the 128GB for $300 and 256GB for $400. And that's it for the hardware. A person could get into VR today for as little as $300.

As for the complicated setup, the Quest 2 is completely stand-alone. No PC is required (I'm a Mac guy and don't even have a PC). No base stations. No setup. No wires or cables. It's a completely self-contained solution.

Some games do need a lot of space, but most can be done just fine in a tiny space. I play in my office usually. I have three games I play standing (Beat Saber, Mini Golf and Bowling), and just about all the rest of my games can be played sitting in my chair (although you could stand). I have one game that needs 6'x6'. I have to play that in the living room because my office just can't cut it. Out of dozens of games, that's the only one I can't play comfortably in my tiny little space.

Motion sickness is a thing. But most people get over it in a few days. They call it getting your VR legs. For me it wasn't so much motion sickness. I've never had that problem. For me it was heights. The first time I was playing a game and needed to cross a giant chasm, I literally said "oh hell no!", quit the game and got back to it the next day. Now that I've been playing for months, I wouldn't even think about it. But it was too real at first.

Finally, if a person does happen to have a PC that is capable of PCVR, then they can also do that either wired or wirelessly with the Quest. So you can have the best of both worlds.

A lot has changed since 2019.

So it sounds like the Quest 2 includes some Smartphone-class hardware in the headset to drive everything? Interesting, definitely a play to move things into the budget realm without going Sony's route. But to be honest, your argument reads more as if you are trying to convince me it is worth trying. Don't feel like you need to win me over here.

I'm more arguing from the origin of thinking: what is the addressable market here? I'm not trying to argue it has no value, but rather that I think it will effectively remain a subset of the gaming market, rather than a dominant one, especially based on what I've seen over the last 30 years in the space. While you say a lot has changed since 2019, I see a technology still fundamentally mired in the same promises and limitations that date back to the 1990s. It has improved, but there's been no fundamental shift, just evolution. Much in the same way that RIM, Nokia (and even Microsoft) heralded the smartphone age, they were missing fundamental pieces of the puzzle that Google and Apple managed to land properly. I see a much similar thing in the VR space today.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It's not that your information is wrong so much as it's out of date. If you plan to go the PC route to VR, everything you said is still true to some degree.

However, the Oculus / Meta Quest 2 is a different beast and has changed things considerably. It comes in two versions, the 128GB for $300 and 256GB for $400. And that's it for the hardware. A person could get into VR today for as little as $300.

As for the complicated setup, the Quest 2 is completely stand-alone. No PC is required (I'm a Mac guy and don't even have a PC). No base stations. No setup. No wires or cables. It's a completely self-contained solution.

Some games do need a lot of space, but most can be done just fine in a tiny space. I play in my office usually. I have three games I play standing (Beat Saber, Mini Golf and Bowling), and just about all the rest of my games can be played sitting in my chair (although you could stand). I have one game that needs 6'x6'. I have to play that in the living room because my office just can't cut it. Out of dozens of games, that's the only one I can't play comfortably in my tiny little space.

Motion sickness is a thing. But most people get over it in a few days. They call it getting your VR legs. For me it wasn't so much motion sickness. I've never had that problem. For me it was heights. The first time I was playing a game and needed to cross a giant chasm, I literally said "oh hell no!", quit the game and got back to it the next day. Now that I've been playing for months, I wouldn't even think about it. But it was too real at first.

Finally, if a person does happen to have a PC that is capable of PCVR, then they can also do that either wired or wirelessly with the Quest. So you can have the best of both worlds.

A lot has changed since 2019.

Doesn't the Quest 2 require you have a Facebook account? That's a deal breaker for me and there's absolutely no reason you should have to have a Facebook account, and I don't care about gamer only or fake account work arounds. You fork over money directly. They don't need to be collecting data on top of that.

 

[MEJHarrison]

But to be honest, your argument reads more as if you are trying to convince me it is worth trying. Don't feel like you need to win me over here.

Yeah, it seems to run Android under the covers. It's not for everyone. I know people who were totally into it. For the first month or two. Then they lose interest. If you think it's not for you, there's a good chance it's not for you.

With that said, if someone comes across this down the line, hopefully the updated information will be useful. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just inform them.

Doesn't the Quest 2 require you have a Facebook account? That's a deal breaker for me and there's absolutely no reason you should have to have a Facebook account, and I don't care about gamer only or fake account work arounds. You fork over money directly. They don't need to be collecting data on top of that.

Yes, you need a Facebook account for now. They say that requirement is going away next year. But my guess is you'll just need a Meta account instead. If you're completely anti-Facebook, this isn't for you. Not at this point in time at any rate. And I personally don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[throAU]

That's a very, very long way of not answering my question - have you actually experienced VR or not? I'm not trying to be a dick... but seriously:

Yes, its very early days, yes the graphics have issues but... until you've actually tried it.... lets just say that the human brain is very good at filling in gaps and papering over the inadequacies, even today. The best example of this I can think of is to fire up the Jurassic park first steps demo on the Quest 2 and feel what your body does as soon as the camera moves. It really doesn't take much to totally fool your brain.

Like I said I was very much not a believer until I got a headset. I was never going to buy in (so very glad that the GF got me one) until there was some sort of neural link but what IS there today is very impressive already.

Seriously, if you haven't experienced it, any assumptions you may have are likely just inaccurate.


If you have used VR and still have your opinion that's totally cool. But I you haven't - I highly recommend trying it. As a proof of concept/what's coming... its insane what we're going to see in the next 5 years.


Ditto for AR. Currently the only two devices I've used are Hololens2 and the Quest 2 (both tethered to PC and standalone) - but they're impressive enough imho.

 

[MEJHarrison]

Like I said I was very much not a believer until I got a headset.

Same here. Someone else in the house wanted one. I thought it would be collecting dust after a month. I actually wasn't far off. However, that was enough for me to buy one of my own. And I've played it every day since. If nothing else, I use it to close the exercise ring on my watch.

 

[throAU]

Same here. Someone else in the house wanted one. I thought it would be collecting dust after a month. I actually wasn't far off. However, that was enough for me to buy one of my own. And I've played it every day since. If nothing else, I use it to close the exercise ring on my watch.

Basically unless its an RPG; VR support is a major factor in whether I will buy a game or not at the moment. And its not just games. 3d movies are also actually "not crap"; even compared to what you'd see in the cinema.

 

[MEJHarrison]

Basically unless its an RPG; VR support is a major factor in whether I will buy a game or not at the moment. And its not just games. 3d movies are also actually "not crap"; even compared to what you'd see in the cinema.

I'd gotten gaming out of my system years ago. These days it's just quick games I play on my phone. Nothing with depth. The Quest surprised me because it made gaming fun and interesting again. Playing on a flatscreen just holds no interest for me at this point.

 

[Nycturne]

That's a very, very long way of not answering my question - have you actually experienced VR or not? I'm not trying to be a dick... but seriously:

Yes, its very early days, yes the graphics have issues but... until you've actually tried it.... lets just say that the human brain is very good at filling in gaps and papering over the inadequacies, even today. The best example of this I can think of is to fire up the Jurassic park first steps demo on the Quest 2 and feel what your body does as soon as the camera moves. It really doesn't take much to totally fool your brain.

Like I said I was very much not a believer until I got a headset. I was never going to buy in (so very glad that the GF got me one) until there was some sort of neural link but what IS there today is very impressive already.

Seriously, if you haven't experienced it, any assumptions you may have are likely just inaccurate.


If you have used VR and still have your opinion that's totally cool. But I you haven't - I highly recommend trying it. As a proof of concept/what's coming... its insane what we're going to see in the next 5 years.


Ditto for AR. Currently the only two devices I've used are Hololens2 and the Quest 2 (both tethered to PC and standalone) - but they're impressive enough imho.

I assume this was aimed at me. But I’m wondering why my opinion warrants such passionate responses.

But if you must know, VR was something I first experienced in the 90s. It’s something I’ve kept tabs on as the technology itself fascinated me, and I was definitely curious when things got sparked again in the last decade after going dormant in the 00s. It inspired a lot of work I did in high school and college around 3D and graphics. My bachelor’s project was in VR. My opinion today is more tempered by a lot more experience working on commercial projects (including the smartphone space during the upheaval by Apple and Google), and having a lot of direct exposure to end users.

 

[throAU]

My opinion today is more tempered by a lot more experience working on commercial projects (including the smartphone space during the upheaval by Apple and Google), and having a lot of direct exposure to end users.

So is that a "I haven't used a recent VR headset in the past 2-3 years" or yes you have?

I get you may have a tainted opinion of VR from years ago, because sure - it sucked. Things are progressing at a rapid rate. And there's no substitute for actually experiencing it.

As to why you're getting such "passionate responses" - not really. You're just writing walls of text that don't address the point...

Like I said, I was definitely NOT a believer and yes I remember VR from the 90s as well.


There's a huge amount of people out there with strong opinions on VR who haven't even tried it, or haven't tried it for many years. I was one of them.

If you haven't tried it recently, all I can say is: try it. And yes, as per above, even the standalone quest 2 does a great job with the limited hardware it has.

 

[SuperMatt]

If Facebook (now called meta) has a part in any VR products, I will not buy those products. I don’t want spyware strapped to my face, recording everything I do, say, and see. They’ve proven themselves. Even if they deny it, you know they will do it anyway.

 

[MEJHarrison]

There's a huge amount of people out there with strong opinions on VR who haven't even tried it, or haven't tried it for many years. I was one of them.

I think the "strap your phone into this $25 VR headset" has set a ton of false expectations. I called my sister thinking her husband would love VR (he would). She told me they have one of those junky things in their yard sale and wouldn't listen to me trying to explain that this was something entirely different. Some people think that's all VR is because they got one at a Christmas gift exchange. That junk market has really hurt the true VR market in my opinion.

 

[MEJHarrison]

If Facebook (now called meta) has a part in any VR products, I will not buy those products. I don’t want spyware strapped to my face, recording everything I do, say, and see. They’ve proven themselves. Even if they deny it, you know they will do it anyway.

You don't get something for nothing. We all know that's what keeps things like Facebook and Google free.

In this particular case, I'm willing to give up some data in exchange for what I'm getting in return. If you feel that's not a fair trade, the Quest 2 isn't for you. It's really that simple. There are other options available if someone were interested enough in VR, but not willing to go the Facebook/Meta route.

I'm curious to see what Apple has up their sleeves. I'd honestly much rather strap one of those on my face. But they're Apple. The odds that it would work with any game currently on the market seems very slim to me. I think they'll attempt to build their own empire, because that's what Apple does. And hitting a $300 entry-level price? Not from the company that sells product X for the ridiculous price of $Y. Whether X be cleaning cloths, wheels, or what-have-you, I don't see them trying to compete with Facebook. With that said, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about either of those guesses.