3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses.

I have not heard anyone complain about the glasses, but tons of ppl complaining about the movies and tech quality.

Also btw currently there's currently a 127g VR glasses available for PC, and Pimax is coming out with a set that's some 180 I think (Dream Air) but also has eyetracking and whatnot.

But yeah mostly I do agree. I had the original vive and the annoyance of what were basically ski goggles that weighed a ton without any proper straps even was a bit much. It was cool though, especially once Ingot got the pro strap which had the more helmet config with the wheel at the back.

I'm thinking of perhaps seeing if I'll get a set later this year to see how far it's come in 8 years.

Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up.

Not really, glasses have long since become a fashion statement and many people wear some without needing them.

I need glasses to correct my heterotropia and even if there was some magic cure for that I'm not sure if I'd stop wearing my glasses to be honest; I kinda like them and how they make me look.

What's doublely stupid is that a developer would have to spend the exact same amount of money to be able to develop an app for the headset. They're not going to do that unless they reasonably sure they're going to make their money back.

this does raise a good question, if apple intended this as specifically being for developers, why aren't they marketing it as such and encouraging devs that they will release a cheaper headset later?

Wait... Does the Vision actively block porn sites or does it not have a web browser?

I don’t see how this is a failure, because I don’t see this as a legitimate push for adoption.

This was a device that cost as much as a used car, with no real pre release applications, and virtually no preemptive dev kits. The only thing I can see that as is an attempt to mass test a new device type with early adopters.

No it wouldn't. Meta just stopped selling the very expensive Quest Pro because the very affordable Quest 3 moved massively more units. Almost no one wants a VR headset that costs more than a thousand dollars because the 300 buck devices already do almost the exact same things

Oh god you can even use it with SteamVR. I would love to try it out now and compare it to the Valve Index.

I bought it. Only because I have the disposable income and could make it a business expense. That said, I use it as a gaming headset 95% of the time. It has an ALVR app so you can do Steam VR. I play mainly just flight simulator.

It’s good for working and watching entertainment on a plane also tho.

there is a big difference between those 3d effects and actual vr, where with one you only get the primitive depth idea your brain produces versus actually being able to inspect something from any angle

it also enables very different inputs, like with beat saber or rumble for example, or recently I was imagining a game where you can point at something to grapple on to it while using the other controller to shoot at enemies at the same time which wouldn't really work without vr

unfortunately for me i'm someone who is interested in computer graphics and the difference in immersion from vr is largely offset by the graphics being worse, the screens looking worse and blurrier, the lack of an actual focus depth (I forget what the technical term for this is but most headsets have everything set so your eyes always focus at what would normally by 1-2 meters away), and the new perspective exposing all of the little graphics tricks that don't really work when you can see them in this level of detail

(i'd say an ideal headset would probably have 6x more pixels than my reverb g2 (/3.5 px because it would also have foveated rendering) and be able to render visuals similar to cyberpunk at 'rt ultra', with apparently already gets 90 fps on a 4090 at 1080p, so that would be 7.5x more pixels, you would need a card 7.5x faster than a 4090, so assuming Moore's Law stays accurate that should be around 12 years from now)

so why hasn't vr taken off? I would say (in no particular order) it's because it hurts your eyes, makes you dizzy, is uncomfortable, its expensive, it doesn't have many apps, the controls feel janky for actual ui stuff where a mouse and keyboard is just easier, people are lazy and it requires some physical activity, people don't have all that much free time

don't take this the wrong way, I generally love VR and have probably 150-200 hrs in it over two years (a lot less than a some people, if you look at the reviews for vr chat for example its not uncommon for people to have >5k hours)

Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D

VR is way more than just "being 3D." The way you interact with things is a bigger influence on what makes it than the visuals. You're not just having things pop out at you off a 2D plane; you're in the thing with them, and you can "touch" them or do pretty much anything you can do with your actual body.

You're right people don't necessarily want to wear a heavy thing on their face for this, though. Especially when there isn't a lot in the way of experiences that actually offer everything the space is capable of and your hardware is almost four-fucking-thousand dollars.

It should have supported VR gaming in general since despite what Apple say it is a VR headset. Pass-Through doesn't make it AR. You need actual glass lenses for that

for game development apparently godot has a standalone version for Meta headsets, but it doesn't really work on the Vision Pro other than some community version that only allows it to display 3d models in small bounds because of OS restrictions, theoretically it should work immersively with WebXR but I don't really know (and then you have to limit your game to what can feasibly be downloaded in a few seconds)

Medical industry on the whole try not to use "killer apps". It's sort of defeats the purpose