You must log in or register to comment.

innovate_rye t1_iqs8byd wrote



SgathTriallair t1_iqsgcdy wrote

100%. VR will always be somewhat niche because it is self contained (just a virtual world). Both smart phones and AR have been/will be so revolutionary because they bring computing out and integrate it into the real world.


re3al t1_iqtb02b wrote

Maybe in the near term, AR might eventually overtake VR temporarily but I think in the end VR will still win.


Freevoulous t1_iqv8vjb wrote

my take is that AR will rule between 2030 and 2045, and post 2045 its VR.


innovate_rye t1_iqsi7ld wrote

yea and tim cook just said that thing u prob saw. AR will be amazing. my google glass fantasies r finally becoming a reality and its apple so even better


Quealdlor t1_iqux84s wrote

I want AR too, but VR is more exciting. Both of these are needed and fun. It would be awesome to have a 3D AI companion you can talk to all the time, in AR glasses or contact lenses. I've been waiting for it since at least 2009. I hope this becomes a reality in 2030.


earthsworld t1_iqs81c7 wrote

not until a headset is not required.


skylyfriend OP t1_iqsabdm wrote

so in essence like a pair of glasses or a device that allows VR to be experienced from within the nervous system?


[deleted] t1_iqsrmiv wrote



Prayers4Wuhan t1_iqto9gx wrote

Pretty much. This post compares VR to phones. Think about how convenient phones have become. At one point they required cords and glued you to a wall inside your house (like VR today). Now phones are sleek and well designed and easily slide in and out of your pocket at a moments notice. You can be in and out anywhere at anytime. That’s what we need for VR to be comparable to smartphones. VR contact lenses would get us there. But glasses could be a bridge.


Quealdlor t1_iquxf8b wrote

What we needed is a revolutionary display technology and a lot more proceeding speed and memory. Drastically better efficiency is necessary.


NintendoCerealBox t1_iqtjwnj wrote

And with each phase there’s going to be initial resistance/naysayers. Then the killer app comes along and everyone starts to jump onboard.


Working-Tomatillo857 t1_iqspz2w wrote

Or a much more light weight headset. I wouldn't mind putting something on the size of a pair of sunglasses. These big bulky headsets are off-putting


Gaudrix t1_iqsr219 wrote

An AR device would replace the smartphone. Eventually the devices would be just about the same one. But a sleeker more productivity focused AR device would replace the phone outright. While VR would be left for work, gaming, and more involved entertainment applications.

Productivity would be the first big factor in adoption I think. If it can replace multiple monitor setups and allow you to interact and work more efficiently then it will be used.

The ideal version of VR is one where you don't have to move your body at all and you are no longer limited by it or your physical space. The VR we have now is really good, but early stages compared to where it will be in a few decades. I think a big leap in the short term would be very good eye tracking. It will allow for higher fidelity on same hardware and it opens the door to an incredibly fast human input device. Going forward you wouldn't need a mouse/controller to track and be manually pointed to where you are looking. You'd just need buttons and as soon as you look at something you can click the button and it clicks there. This would allow you to interact with menus in VR and extended pc desktop views at an insanely accelerated pace compared to a mouse or controller pointing. Using a virtual keyboard with eyes would be faster than now but still not as fast as a physical one. Voice to text could be utilized for longer typing sessions.

I think half the weight, double the resolution while pushing higher fps >=144, +50-100% the fov, eye tracking input system, and very comfortable to wear for several hours with no issue. I can imagine laying in bed and just working, or exploring the virtual net.

All of this working towards a full neural connection for input and output of course but that might be several decades away so no point in waiting for it. It's best to just make the best use out of what we have.


Sashinii t1_iqshc2x wrote

I won't be interested in VR until full dive VR exists and I think the same goes for most people.


DarthBuzzard t1_iqtgdro wrote

> I won't be interested in VR until full dive VR exists and I think the same goes for most people.

Nah. No one is waiting for full dive VR - and that includes you.

It's just a matter of not knowing what you want.

Full Dive VR will bring in billions more people who were never interested before, but anyone who is interested in the concept of VR will buy into it when it's akin to Ready Player One. Still a headset, but more like a visor. Not a brain interface, but still sci-fi level immersive.


TheKnightIsForPlebs t1_iquxk22 wrote

This is where definition’s blur, to the guy you replied to RP1 could equate to full dive.

However. I get the gist of what you’re saying and acknowledge it’s likely accurate


Kaarssteun t1_iqskclt wrote

What if i tell you there's a saturated anime RPG-filled world coming, sashinii


Sashinii t1_iqsl0px wrote

I'd fancy that. Imagine how epic it'll be moving around in 2D when full dive VR is created.


AsuhoChinami t1_iqt0wxc wrote

What game?


Kaarssteun t1_iqtbvdu wrote

Two come to mind, Zenith and Ruinsmagus, neither are realyl what i described yet though. It's only a matter of time before the anime world comes to fruition my friend


AsuhoChinami t1_iqtsuhr wrote

I actually played Ruinsmagus. It's a great game but too hard for me, I couldn't beat the ninja boss who's the first real boss of the game. I'm glad the devs said they'll add difficulty options soon.


mootcat t1_iquhc6y wrote

Zenith is extremely rough. Neat idea, hard to execute on well in VR.


Quealdlor t1_iquxmnt wrote

How about some lightweight 8K per eye, 210° FoV headsets with eye and face tracking?


quantummufasa t1_iqswga6 wrote

Theres some sub genres of games and movies that work in VR but otherwise theres no point.

Like how in a group chat no one really cares about seeing anyone elses face, so having a virtual room doesnt really add anything either


DarthBuzzard t1_iqtgmth wrote

> Like how in a group chat no one really cares about seeing anyone elses face, so having a virtual room doesnt really add anything either

Doesn't that mean meeting in the real world is pointless and we should all hide behind phones and keyboards?


esp211 t1_iqsau4g wrote

Unless it is absolutely not possible or necessary to go outside in a dystopian type world, I don’t see the mass adoption that we are seeing with pocket computers. I think AR, which actually enhances the real world, is the near future. I’m really excited to see what the world looks like in 10 years.


LilOcean t1_iqssvl4 wrote

Personally I think there are several things that need huge improvements for it to become mainstream. First one being higher resolution displays, the trouble with this is rendering very high resolutions requires better GPUs, as a high resolution increases the cost of rendering. Also these GPUs need to become affordable enough for it to be in a mainstream product at a competitive price.

Secondly, I think a better field of view, this is similar to the last point, as it requires more screen to be rendered therefore increasing the cost to render it. We can overcome these challenges with eye tracking and foviated rendering hopefully.

Next I think we need good intuitive controllers, something comfortable with good haptics to allow more interactions, theres are some cool ideas out there, search up VR gloves for examples.

We also just generally need more developers to start making full games for VR, this is tricky as the market is small so they would not see much return on their hard work. But we need someone to get the ball rolling to attract more people to the market. Once people see the unique experiences to be had in VR, they will be more interested to join in.

Lastly I think we need to increase comfort by lowering the weight and size of the headsets, a lot of people I know who own headsets say this is a big reason they dont use VR as much as they would like to.


Quealdlor t1_iquy2og wrote

We need GPUs measured in at least hundreds of teraflops (and teratextures, terapixels/s), much faster single-thread CPU performance, 210° field of view, 240 Hz, at least 8K per eye and full eye and face tracking. All of that helped by foveated rendering, upscaling and interpolation. By then, VR will be quite decent, not so bad. Perhaps it is going to happen in the 2030s.


LilOcean t1_iqxivh8 wrote

this would be the dream, 210 degrees field of view in a small package will be a challenge though, I hope we dont have to wear a heavy pimax style headset to experience this haha.


Quealdlor t1_ir1wpqw wrote

If VR is 100-110°, then I'm staying with PC monitors, just larger, with higher resolutions, better colors, better contrast and higher refresh rates.


Dabithebeast t1_iqsjco6 wrote

Like other people are saying, I believe it’s going to be AR that’s primarily going to blow up first and I think a lot of these tech companies are realizing that such as Apple. Imo, once apple releases their ar/vr headset is when things are really going to start ramping up and more people are going to begin to become more interested. I feel like it’s sort of inevitable because people are always gonna want the next big thing, especially since I feel like phones are starting to plateau. I think meta definitely made a smart long term decision about the future or VR and AR even though they’re kinda taking a beating in stock price and all that.


purple_hamster66 t1_iqt1r07 wrote

It should be meaningful to what normal people need above what a cell phone, tablet, or computer can do.

So if it’s just for maps, no go. If it shows you the next exit visually, no go (HUDs do this now). If it navigate within a building to get out of a fire that has no wifi, that’s value you can’t get from a cell phone.

If it shows a video of a recipe, no go. If it highlights where you left the spatula, or detects that your sauce is boiling too much, ok.

If it interacts with your computer by adding depth to the display, no go. If it shows you which keys to press to show a special character, or diagnoses that your right hand is .5” too far to the left to hit keys accurately, ok.

If it lets you meet with people in 3D, and walk around a virtual convention hall to experience different audiences, no go. If you can augment faces with a person’s name and what you talked about the last time you met them, ok. If it can diagnose a person’s health by examining their gate and skin color from multiple angles, ok.

Also: compatible with glasses (2/3 of adults wear glasses), and not get in the way.


Powerful_Range_4270 t1_iqvtyi7 wrote

Your missing the biggest one and that is field of view or looking around without having to scroll or hold it in your hand. The smartphone replaced physical buttons on flipphones. We could have made flipphones better by making them faster speeds. But overall functionality on a smartphone is what killed filpphones. The smartphone did nothing revolutionary. VR will increase your overall functionality but again it won't be revolutionary.


purple_hamster66 t1_iqx7uh2 wrote

How does “looking around” help me edit a spreadsheet? It’s the utility that leads users, not the tech.

Yes, overall functionality is what killed flipphones, definitely. IOW, smartphones excelled because they made it easy for third parties to write apps, so I could have an app that is useful to me (and to folks in similar situations). Flip phone apps were written by the manufacturers, IIRC.

I think of VR as a smart phone display with a better mount, nothing more. Remember the first popular VR displays were just cardboard boxes that you slipped your cell phone into. Lenses help move the image away and adapt to pupil distances, boxes keep excess light out, elastic bands help with balance — all tweaks. All the really useful stuff - forward looking cams, accelerometers, barometers, depth cams - are in the phone itself.


Gorrium t1_iqtg54d wrote

Needs to be cheap, better quality and not be attached to Facebook.

AR will be what goes mainstream, but apple will make it too expensive


lacergunn t1_iqu11vq wrote

VR would probably go the way of the everyday game console, I can't see people blocking out nearly all of their senses on the train or while walking to work.

AR on the otherhand can be integrated more easily.


Also the tech needs to be a lot smaller.


Zamorak_Everknight t1_iqs7yqw wrote

What's the appeal? What's the utility of VR right now?

Compare this to the utility that smartphones have offered since the inception of the iPhone.


Quealdlor t1_iqsud4u wrote

(FD)VR is my dream and goal, but current VR is ... crappy. Quest 2 is EXTREMELY underpowered and buying a fully fledged desktop PC with RTX 4090 + Pimax 8K or 12K will be a major purchase and there is hardly any software to run on it. I'm not optimistic about the near future of VR. Just look: Quest 3 will come THREE YEARS after Quest 2 and won't even feature eye tracking, RTX 4080 is a lot worse than the 4090 but still costs $900-1400, AMD needs 2 years to improve gaming performance by 25%, Valve Index has still no successor. All of these aren't boding well for the next 5-7 years of VR. My prediction is that VR before the 2030s will be very crappy. Headsets will be uncomfortable, bulky and with a narrow field of view, etc.


dreamedio t1_iqtaj5h wrote

Even if full dive VR become real for some reason the whole world construction of that VR would be a must


Quealdlor t1_iquwob1 wrote

By the 25% improvement I meant CPUs, not GPUs. 7900X will be 80% or so faster than 6900XT.


Powerful_Range_4270 t1_iqvx8vj wrote

I dont think we will have full dive before 2030. But im doubtful that vr in general will be just like quest 2 in quality by 2029.


Quealdlor t1_ir1w2b6 wrote

Look: Quest 3 will come three years after Quest 2. It may at best have twice as fast hardware and at a maximum twice the screen resolution. Will be visibly thinner (and probably lighter too). No eye or face tracking - that will have to wait for Quest 4 ... in 2026? In other words: it may have a similar level of graphical fidelity, just at a higher resolution. As you see, progress isn't very fast. It isn't non-existent, but not fast enough. If Quest 5 in 2029 is only 8x faster than the current Quest 2, then it won't be very impressive for someone who has a good PC and a 4K monitor today. It's going in the direction that will have thinner, more comfortable, higher resolution headsets, but nothing like Full Dive.


Black_RL t1_iqtd519 wrote

No one wants to wear helmets, so tbh it won’t happen until it’s way smaller.


ReasonablyBadass t1_iqshswt wrote

I think issues are: 1) still relatively expansive equipment and 2) you need actual room to enjoy this.

For killer apps I could see: 3D design and modelling software that will allow engineers to work in 3D environments. Or more broadly: 3D data processing.


Frumpagumpus t1_iqsjmxe wrote

one thing not mentioned: better robots so you can use vr to physically visit distant physical locations and do work/stuff there

people saying AR must not realize vr headsets have pass through mode.


allouiscious t1_iqskv52 wrote

Make it where it does not mess up my hair.


ihateshadylandlords t1_iqst5c6 wrote

There has to be a compelling reason for a layman to purchase VR hardware/software.


GoodAndBluts t1_iqsv0xk wrote

Smartphones fit into your life (in your pocket)

You are expected to fit your life into VR (your head in thier headset)

I love VR, but I think that is the difference


FlapJackson420 t1_iqsz6o3 wrote

It won't be VR, rather, AR. And the tech produced by Microsoft is pretty impressive already. I think 15 years tops to answer the question.


Hailtothething t1_iqt4d1b wrote

AR to gateway drug everyone into headsets, then flick the Vr switch ‘on’


Effective-Dig8734 t1_iqt9l5d wrote

It could become more prevelant in gaming but to be as popular as the iPhone it would need to be made so it’s something you always have access to


daltonoreo t1_iqth9ac wrote

It needs to be cheap to manufacture, Cheap to buy, it needs to be lighter and more compact (AND ALSO SOLVE THE ISSUE OF SWEAT ON THE FACE AAAAAAAAAAAAA). It needs to solve the issue of "VR Legs", Personally I've developed my VR legs, but I know some people just can't. It needs to be useful enough to take it everywhere as currently it doesn't have any real use besides gaming.

Honestly, I don't see VR becoming any type of mainstream until full dive is developed.


imlaggingsobad t1_iqu371t wrote

  1. VR has to be more compelling than the phone/PC. It has to be easier to use. It has to be competitive in price. It has to have a better UI than a phone. It has to be more technologically advanced.
  2. The use cases need to get better. The work tools need to increase productivity. The gaming needs to be more fun. The social apps need to be more engaging. The virtual events need to be more realistic.
  3. We need more companies in the space. Meta, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Sony, Samsung, Valve and others, all need to release a range of devices. We need more developers making stuff.

Romanfiend t1_iqu4anl wrote

I looked at VR but when the main player is Facebook which owns the Occulus and is utilizing it to glean as much data from users as possible, well, that feels exploitative and invasive. When there is a major player that can drop a solid VR set that protects the privacy of the user then we can talk about VR in the mainstream.

And for the record no I don’t use Facebook or instagram either. It’s crap.


Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iqucx9j wrote

They might never go mainstream, because they are simply uncomfortable to wear. We are nowhere close to having Lightweight VR or AR headsets that can display at high resolutions with realistic graphics.


cptmcclain t1_iqujqi9 wrote

More content, more users, and a common navigation system for content


Chinaischeap31 t1_iqul3q4 wrote

Needs to be smaller, portable, multifunctional. I feel like we are just at the beginning stages of VR and there is still lots of improvements that need to be made to make it main stream. If I were to compare the technology to phones I would say that VR is like a land line phone. Long way to go before it reaches modern smartphone level.


fairyforged t1_iqupoc5 wrote

Unfortunately I think meta has the right idea as far as making the headset very lightweight and changing the controllers to a wristband.


Fit-Repair-4556 t1_iqupw8n wrote

AR is not happening before VR that is one thing for sure, no one wants an obstruction over their vision that they cannot completely control.


Quealdlor t1_iquyr97 wrote

Btw, I think that Meta is hurting VR by using mobile instead of desktop PC. Lightweight mobile devices will always be inferior to larger desktop devices! Compare iPhone 14 with RTX 4090. They are making VR evolve slower and take longer to reach a certain level. How long will it take for Quest to reach 4090 level? 10 years? 15 years? We can have it on desktop this year!


Quealdlor t1_iquz57p wrote

Using Quest 2 feels like a large step back compared to a 4K capable PC and 120 Hz 4K HDR monitor. I don't know how people can use that thing. Don't they know better?


Powerful_Range_4270 t1_iqvpjc5 wrote

But if you want a bigger screen you have to get a new physical one and what if I want to adjust the screen size. Some one is going to have to put up with bad vr the OK vr, good vr ect. Some people don't want wired vr.


ectbot t1_iqvpkoq wrote

Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."

"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are etc., &c., &c, and et cet. The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.

Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.

^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)


Quealdlor t1_ir1uxu5 wrote

If you want a bigger screen then buy a curved 34" monitor.


Cuissonbake t1_iqvb9i3 wrote

Once we figure out how to condense the power of a desktop PC into the size of a thin wearable bandage that draws power from your own body. But that'll be ages from now so the next best option is using those robo dogs as mules to carry a heavy PC for you once batteries get good. But you'd also have to normalize that culturally.

And creating a mobile VR setup is basically just AR at that point. Unless we normalize staying at home as the new culture. But society is run by people who think everyone likes going outside so...


ReluctantApple t1_iqvs2w6 wrote

Likely will never happen.

The “inconvenience factor” of any headset/viewing device will prevent the majority of people bothering. Powerful as they are “smart phones” are ubiquitous because they are NOT inconvenient and don’t inhibit, burden or get in you way when not being used.

Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s useful or necessarily ubiquitous.


ziplock9000 t1_iqwddc3 wrote

Price needs to come down

It's only half a technology without a moving floor and only suits a fraction of current games where you don't move.


Powerful_Range_4270 t1_iqwwwie wrote

Why does VR need to be perfect in order or it not to be pointless.Smartphone didn't start out perfect.


sgjo1 t1_iqsie8p wrote

When the smartphone was introduced in 07/08, the masses rushed to get one.

When the Oculus headset was introduced in 2012, the masses generally still don’t give a shit :).

There just isn’t enough demand to hang out in virtual worlds. For some niches and audiences there is, but so far not the masses…


ImoJenny t1_iqsp7vv wrote

Honestly it doesn't interest me at all. We're already running up against limits imposed by human physiology. People who can take the overstimulation tend to not be our best or brightest.


Quealdlor t1_iqvilw1 wrote

You are looking wrongly at things. Our destiny is not to try to survive in this Universe. Our destiny is to explore infinite virtual worlds for infinity, by using the maximum computation that can be achieved using all dimensions and all matter that can be accessed.


ImoJenny t1_iqw52e9 wrote

You bore me and you're totalizing. Other people aren't obligated to pursue your happiness and the fact that you think you can tell me I should indicates that you lack the ethical foundation to be making such determinations.

I hope you never have any authority over others as you are already admitting you would abuse it.

Also, destiny isn't a thing. That's magical thinking. We don't do that here.


Quealdlor t1_ir99pco wrote

Escaping this awful, shitty, boring and disgusting universe is a dream of mine since childhood. That's the only reason I'm living. Otherwise I would kill myself.


ImoJenny t1_irak37q wrote

Your dream. Not mine, and not most people's. Your threat of suicide doesn't sway me either. Using your suicidal tendency and other people's empathy to force their compliance shows that there is nothing in this universe as disgusting as what lies within your heart.

Kindly fuck off