> but until anyone else releases a compelling VR/AR product, apple is never going to. They are not going to be the ones to tip their hands on what the next generation of these devices can be.

This isn't the smartphone era. VR/AR has a long road to maturity. Apple can't afford to wait another 10 years before they release something in this space, or they risk losing a top spot.

There's fully immersive, and then there's hyper immersive.

What you want is the PS5 equivalent of VR. A mature technology that delivers experiences people could have only dreamed of 30 years ago.

What you think you want is the PS9/PS10 equivalent of VR where it's perfect - completely perfect.

What technology was totally perfected before a fan of the concept of that tech bought in? There aren't any I can think of. There will be new people who aren't interested in VR until it's like the matrix, but that's because they don't even like the concept of VR or the matrix, but get pushed into it anyway out of necessity or because they can't help it.

If you're a fan of VR - the idea of VR, then you will find value in VR long before a full brain interface. VR is already very immersive today, and we will genuinely get to hyper realism levels of immersion in the next 10-15 years. It won't be a brain interface, but it will be at existential-crisis levels of immersion - and no fan of the concept needs any more than that to buy in.

Perhaps a better example would be "I'm not really interested in videogames until they get to 10000 player battle royales with lifelike pathtraced graphics and perfect physics/collision/fluid+smoke physics."

Certainly no one thinks this way today, but some people would have thought videogames were meh back in the Atari days but came around later on.

Quest Pro is a troubled product in the sense that it was delayed and redesigned due to a myriad of reasons that threw a spanner into the works.

We're still in the early 2020s, and if you've seen Meta's R&D, you'll know that it is far beyond this. If they can execute on their R&D well enough without fumbling, then it will likely flourish in the late 2020s and early 2030s.

"Not really interested in a computer. Quantum or gtfo"

Pretty zero there are now a total of zero people in the world waiting for a quantum computer before they are interested in a PC.

It always goes down the same. People reverse their opinion as tech matures.

Those are very clear issues with the tech today, but are definitely solvable, so I see those as growing pains.

That's my point really. The Wii Sports stuff Meta is demonstrating has nothing to do with the metaverse. That's just Horizon Worlds, a first party application.

The metaverse would be a global network to be built over the next 5 years.

> In VR, those interactions would be slower.

Speed is not everything.

People value speed when they have asynchronous communication, like texting someone, where the goal is a quick exchange and not to hang out or have a strong connection.

People value deep connection when they have time set aside for synchronous communication, and VR will be the best at providing this connection.

Zuck's idea is an interoperable metaverse. This has always been what he's said, and he's part of the metaverse standards forum working with other companies to build the standards and protocols for this.

I suppose they could be double dealing under the table and secretly trying to create their own walled garden metaverse that everyone else falls under, but we'll have to wait and see.

The internet does not currently handle the protocols needed to establish seamless interoperability between 3D apps.

The idea is to have thousands, tens of thousands of apps from any company/individual that users can move between and have persistence of 3D identity and shared functionality of the worlds/apps.

The tech is hardly failing. It's a growing industry.

The metaverse? Well that remains to be seen since it doesn't exist yet.

Well for one, the metaverse isn't a game or an application or anything downloadable. It's a hypothesized interoperable global network that apps/games would be a part of.

As for VR/AR specifically, most of the tech has yet to be seen in products. We're missing 90% of what will define VR/AR in the future.

> I really want to see the graphic fidelity of UE5 games and the latest batch of AAAs like Fallen Order in VR.

You can actually play Fallen Order in VR with Praydog's mod, in 3rd person. It just feels like a more immersive way to play the game rather than something gimmicky.

> Any FPS that relies on precision and speed like Counter-Strike, COD, Fortnite, Overwatch, where precision aiming, spinning 180 degrees to shoot the guy behind you can be accomplished with a small movement of the mouse.

I'd agree that VR wouldn't be suited for this. Not sure if I'd classify that as a genre, but you are right that this gameplay can't be replicated (though you can still bring the franchises to VR).

MOBAs have been done in VR before, though as a 1st person experience. This could also be done with a top-down perspective, but of course it would feel different to control, like a mix of console-based MOBAs using a controller and having different gameplay mechanics that can be brought by the tracked controllers.

So you can't translate LoL exactly as it exists, but a spinoff could definitely be done. I'd actually appreciate a 3D overhead map I can easily look at and naturally zoom out/in to see more at once (only when units are revealed of course).

> Most sports games like FIFA, NHL, NBA where players have an overhead view of the playing field are ill-suited for VR.

> RTS games like Starcraft II, Age of Empires...

> Any isometric platformer or longitudinal platform games.

> Most Combat games like Smash, Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal combat.

Overhead view works fine in VR. This could be great for the social aspect in RTS/Sports/Fighting games. Have two massive avatars sit on each side of the stadium / arena.

> Most MMO games like World of Warcraft where having an wide field of view (hovering camera) is essential.

That's merely just how 3rd person MMOs are designed, but nothing says that a VRMMO has to abide by that. Your field of view in VR, especially as headsets mature will be far higher than that of a console/PC 1st person game allowing you to not fall into the same pitfalls of a traditional 1st person MMO.

I'd also say VRMMOs have so much to gain over traditional MMOs that it might even be the default playstyle for the genre in the 2030s.

> The best games for VR are

> ... ... ...

> ... ... ...

> ... ... ...

Those are certainly some of the top genres, but I'd still say MMOs and RPGs or the two together stand to be some of the absolute best genres for VR when more games take advantage of these genres.

Platformers are also brilliant. Astro Bot as a 3rd person platformer is the highest rated PSVR game, and Stride shows how great Mirror's Edge 1st person style parkour works.

> I might be being dumb

You're not. You've caught on better than most, because you are right in that it doesn't yet exist and isn't meant to exist for years to come.

I'm a software developer.

I very much preferred it to regular CoD games. It didn't feel distracting.

I've played CoD maps in Pavlov, and there's a full Medal of Honor game in VR.

> that non-IT professionals will want to learn more and have opinions.

Unfortunately that is rare on this subreddit. Most people that comment here have no intention to learn, because the majority of sources/statistics/studies that gets posted are disregarded and downvoted, with anecdotal opinions being the prevailing truth.

> Lots of traditional video game genres don't fit well into it though.

Which ones don't fit?

> I get these r/Technology suggested posts but honestly this subreddit does not feel like it has IT professionals in it.

Correct. Most people in here are tech-illiterate, but they mask themselves as if they are somehow knowledgeable.

> 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?

> 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.