Probably 2030-2040 if I had to guess. Hard to say because things can be deceptive.

ChatGPT for example can be extremely clever and useful while also hallucinating made-up information that seems plausible as first glance.

> “Mark Zuckerberg claims humanity will move into the metaverse in the future, leaving reality behind for a world of our own creation, that we completely control.”

This is just an author interpretation. It's bad journalism, twisting Zuck's words.

Zuck has been very clear in his interviews, saying that the metaverse will not 'take over' people's lives and that people will likely just shift the time they spend on TVs/PCs and 2D screens into immersive platforms like VR/AR.

He thinks that the VR they are working on cannot replace reality and isn't meant for that - but is instead going to be a great way to do things when reality can't provide.

>“Meta plans to spend the next five to 10 years building an immersive virtual world, including scent, touch and sound to allow people to get lost in VR.”

This is also just bad journalism. It's just a random sentence that the author made up.

> cause i’ve seen Mark talk about the metaverse shit like 20 times and he clearly states that it’ll become indistinguishable from reality.

Yes, from a visual/audio standpoint. He sometimes talks about how multisensory integration and the brain's plasticity allows people to have believable experiences in VR despite only two senses being functional, because the brain is very good at filling in the rest.

That's what he meant. Having experiences that are indistinguishable from reality because the brain can fill in the rest.

And even then, he makes it clear that this is not uniform. He has said that you can't replicate reality in every scenario, and that some things will feel more real and others less so.

> Elon has even said on the Babylon Bee podcast that neuralink would be able to let you play games online like in sword art online.

Maybe one day, but they are far from approaching writing detailed signals to a human brain.

No one knows. If I had to guess, it's at least 20 years out and maybe many more years beyond that.

This is literally the main person responsible for Meta's development efforts in VR/AR.

By 2030, we will likely have hyper realistic visuals (at least 60 PPD + little to no optical distortions + HDR + variable focus). Can be pushed further and no doubt FoV will still have a ways to go, but vision will likely be in the realm of hyper realism.

Audio will likely be convincingly real due to personal HRTF generation being common and standard with audio propagation being utilized to fill in the missing pieces of spatialization.

Touch will likely not be solved as an affordable product for consumers. You will have consumer options, but it's unlikely to be standardized by then and won't be at the fidelity that we all want. It may take another 5+ years to get us there.

Smell and taste just won't be a thing outside enthusiast options like smell capsules which have serious drawbacks. There won't be a scalable product that can be standardized by 2030.

Hopefully you'll see what I mean with this: https://youtu.be/rXuswL_3Qto?t=2503

Yet Zuck has never said this, and no one in Meta has said this, and no one in Meta is working on all 5 senses.

You made it up.

I've watched as many interviews from him as I can find.

Having 5 senses is not the same thing as the metaverse being mainstream or investments fully paying off - these are different claims.

So yes, Zuck has grand claims about VR's success in the next 5-15 years which I agree with, but has no claims about all 5 senses being there.

Zuck has never said this.

Infact, Meta's chief scientist Michael Abrash has said that solving the sense of smell isn't going to happen in the next 10 years (smell capsules don't count - they can't scale to the masses), and he believes taste is not even on the distant horizon, because you need to figure out how to replicate the feeling of texture and actually swallowing food without actually swallowing real food.

Touch may be solved in 10-15 years, at least as much as it can without a brain interface.

We're talking a possible $2000-3000 device here.

> sell twice as many

Not this product though. It's rumored to be a very expensive device.

> 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.