Facebook, parent company of Oculus, is beginning to flex its virtual reality arm. The company wants to use the technology revolutionize how social interactions happen across the web, and we may see the first stages of that plan earlier than expected.

Back when Facebook bought Oculus in 2014 for $2 billion, people were… confused. What’s a social media company doing buying a company that makes VR headsets? For Facebook, it was (and still is) a long-term bet; the vision is to keep the company on the leading edge of online social communication when ‘Facebook.com’ and the websites of today become less relevant in the face of increasingly natural human-computer interaction.

Photo courtesy Mark Zuckerberg
Photo courtesy Mark Zuckerbergmark

What do online social networks look like in 10 to 20 years when people rarely interact with computers using a keyboard, mouse, and monitor? That’s the answer Facebook wants to find out before its competitors, and the reason they dropped $2 billion on Oculus. Mainstream social VR at the scale of Facebook.com is far off, but we may have our hands on the company’s first social VR offering earlier than expected.

The company has been prototyping internally to find out how to create a compelling social virtual reality experience. We saw the first evidence of that experimentation back in April during Facebook’s F8 conference when they revealed their first social VR experience that allowed users to visit photospheres together, take virtual selfies, and draw interactive accessories to customize their avatars.

Mark Zuckerberg shows off his company’s latest social VR prototype on stage at Oculus Connect 2016

Earlier this month at the Oculus Connect developer conference, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed the latest iteration of the company’s social VR prototype which featured new avatars, videospheres, and even the ability to make video calls from the real world into the virtual world via Facebook Messenger.

Video: Watch Mark Zuckerberg Demo Facebook's Latest Social VR Prototype

Speaking about that new demonstration in a session at the Connect conference, Facebook Social VR Product Manager Mike Booth explored the experiments that led to the impressive experience showed on stage.

At the end of the session I asked Booth whether Facebook planned to wait and put out their social VR offering as a big company-wide launch, or if the public would get their hands on it sooner.

“As soon as possible,” Booth said, further explaining that Facebook wants to get their first social VR experience out the door quickly and iterate with feedback from early users. When asked if we were likely to see that before the end of 2016, he was tight lipped. “When it’s done.”

In the session, Booth said that Facebook’s social VR team had experimented with a number of activities and spaces for friends to congregate in virtual reality, ranging from tabletop games to apartments that users could decorate to their taste. In the end, they scraped most of those activities to keep the core of the Facebook social VR experience focused on social interaction and sharing, rather than gaming.


It’s taken time for Oculus to become fully absorbed into its parent organization, but the Facebook brand is becoming increasingly engaged with its virtual reality division. We saw that in full force at Oculus Connect with Zuckerberg taking to the stage to lead a major portion of the opening keynote (where he showed the new Facebook social VR experience), leaving Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe to bring up the tail end of that portion of the presentation. Further, Connect saw a new approach to branding by Oculus which is now prominently underlined with a ‘From Facebook’ slogan.

Facebook Founder Says Company Invested $250M in VR Content, Will Invest $250M More

Oculus’ early social VR efforts on their mobile Gear VR platform seem to have largely been forgotten in the transition. What we’ve seen from Facebook and Oculus this month suggests a new, more extensive social VR initiative has spun up internally and taken the place of prior efforts.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • DiGiCT Ltd

    VR can only be a small time window be the new social media platform, eventually social media will fir more the AR HMD’s like you see from hololens.
    People still like to share what they have in real life, and that remains hard when you are in VR to share it in real time.
    E.G you just bought some new shoes and you want to show them, this is more easy with an AR device to share.
    Also AR feels much more natural and fits more into reality, making it a much more adoptable platform, think about old people which need to gear up into VR comapred to AR.

    Facebook buying Oculus was IMO not for social media, but rather a profit investment based on VR HMD sales, with in mind that it would take a while for others to hit the market.

    Facebook would not have needed to buy Oculus as they just could buy the devices and develop their apps on it.
    The most stupid thing about it is locking yourself in Oculus only for your social VR, which is not logical all the way down as there will be many more platforms and devices within a year from now not running on oculus, even oculus will not have half the market share.

    The story for buying Oculus is therefore not for social media IMO. there is no logic in it, unless you would have thought Oculus will be the only one for a while on the market.
    The true part about the article on which I can agree is that facebook sooner or later will need to upgrade to a newer platform to survive, but it ain’t going to survive on Oculus only.

    • Glenn Rubin

      Yeah but they have Facebook. 1/5 of the world has an active account on Facebook. I can see where they’re going with this but don’t necessarily like their strategy/ethics.

    • Get Schwifty!

      I am sure they see that it’s an AR/VR play; they are not locked into just VR, they consider all forms of “VR” under one umbrella. I really can’t see a company spending $2 billion dollars to turn around and count on selling HMDs, that just makes no sense at all and is utterly inconsistent with about everything they are saying about “VR” and their reasoning for purchasing Oculus (and it ignores about everything Oculus has said about the direction). FB is pretty up front as the article shows about their goals: they intend to be in front as much as possible on changes to social interaction, and they want to understand it as deeply as they can as it develops..

      No one is locked into Oculus for their social media or VR; they fully plan on software and back-end systems to support Facebook and Facebook integrated applications which will be experienced in Oculus tech, Vive, and frankly whatever kind of VR devices come to market that can support a browser (even VR-based) just as people consume social media across all kinds of devices. They are not the only social media, they know it, but they also know they are a major (perhaps the major player) and naturally wish to continue.

      They see “VR” as an inevitable progression between human/computer interactions. To me their purchase of Oculus makes perfect sense, to be deeply embedded in helping to develop virtual social technology but also it’s for direct research on understanding how social media will evolve as humans continue to more online. Agree with them or not, they make mistakes but they are generally not near-sighted and one-dimensional in their thinking.

      Underneath, this is perhaps the largest distinction between FB/Oculus and Valve/HTC, the former sees the tech as a supporting means to a larger end, the latter is all about recurrent hardware sales.

      • RipVoid

        I don’t think you give Valve enough credit. They have a vision but it is perhaps necessarily less focused than Facebooks. They have stated they want Lighthouse to be as ubiquitous to VR as WiFi is now. Valve doesn’t already have a billion customers like Facebook so they have to attract those customers instead of just transition them. Its not surprising that they would be a little more slipshod as they struggle to find a model that works for them. They appear to be getting traction in the commercial market and that might be what they need to move beyond gaming.

        Valve is going up against some very big companies that have a much bigger customer base than they do. They are not in a position to invest billions and let the market come to them. If they are not nimble and responsive they will be out of business next year.

        • DiGiCT Ltd

          I don’t think so that they out of business.
          They have a much better expierence for making as well as distributing games compared to facebook..
          For games Valve always been a big player.

          One of their Biggest game titles being played CS.
          And now you should also look at Dota2 how much money goes in there around.
          Season pro team can win several million dollars.

        • MasterElwood

          You are confusing VALVE with VIVE/HTC.

      • MasterElwood

        Exactly. Oculus is not “locked in” to VR – neither do they have something against AR. Abrash even stated that in the (distant) future VR and AR are going to be used by everyone, side by side.

  • Armando Tavares

    ‘THE’ only problem with current VR/AR platforms is: PRICE!!

    Once Oculus/Vive/PSVR sell to the ‘rich’ of the planet and within those, to the ones that actually want to buy it, who will be left? Even in Europe, there are MILLIONS of people that make less money every month then what Oculus/Vive costs. Both Oculus and Vice started with the wrong concept: Let’s build THE BEST VR we can build (that’s fine btw) and people will buy it no matter the price (this is not). Guess what? I think they are wrong. Dead wrong.

    Some people will buy it no matter the cost but are those selected few enough to keep VR going?? The short answer is a resounding ‘NO’. I’m guessing that, if Oculus/Vive doesn’t drop to PSVR price point FAST, VR will die short after it’s birth… at least until some Chinese based company picks it up and starts selling a bad device for 150$ and some one improves on that, to what Oculus/Vive is now (yeah I think that’s possible), and sells it for the correct price: 300/350$.

    Samsung/Xiaomi/Huawei (even Microsoft through it’s cellphone division) could blow all these newbies right off of the water. How? Read on:

    Build a VR(ish) device using technology any of those companies have access to RIGHT NOW, that will connect to almost ANY computer. Not hyper gaming machines with 500$ graphics cards.

    All the device needed to do is: Replace mouse inputs, that are used in gaming to move your line of sight around (up, down, left, right), with sensors that are present today in ANY cellphone. If you ever used Samsung VR you’ll know this is feasible and simple to do. Imagine this device simply replacing the screen and mouse inputs that turn your head in-game (other controls remain the same) and you’d be able to use it NOW with ANY game your computer is able to run. That’s it.

    Would you buy this over ‘NASA engineered’ Oculus/Vive?? Is your answer ‘yes’? Mine is.

    Oculus/Vive overthought and overdid the concept and they may end up paying the ultimate price for that mistake.

    • MasterElwood

      You know your “Samsung VR” is made by Oculus, right? Makes your whole point invalid ;-)

      • Armando Tavares

        What you actually want to say is that Samsung VR was developed by Samsung in collaboration with Oculus, and IS, in fact, manufactured by Samsung. Not Oculus.

        My point is that the technology used to make Samsung VR is widely available and could be used by a few big companies to blow, the bells and whistles heavy Oculus and Vive, out of the water.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m not stating such a device would be better at VR then Oculus or Vive. To get that clear and out of the way: I am NOT! I’m simply saying that such a device would better serve a much wider public in a much wider content pool at a lower price point then the previously mentioned Oculus and Vive.

        Btw. Would you answer my question?
        Would you buy ‘my’ device’ (something you could use right now, plugged to your computer, usable in most games available) over Oculus/Vive?

        PS. I’m not placing PSVR in the same bucket of Oculus and Vive. Sony is playing it almost perfect because the price of, both PS4 and PSVR, will drop eventually.

        • MasterElwood

          Ahhh… no. I want the ABSOLUTELY best VR experience possible. That´s why i bought the RIFT, a I7-6700k – and a GTX1080. No compromises.

          I also think it was the ABSOLUTELY right move to focus on the RIFT first. Nobody would give a shit or believe in VR if they had just started with GearVR – like nobody gave a shit about electric cars until Testla showed them what it COULD be.

          The Tesla was the right move – the RIFT was the right move.

          PS: Who manufactures the GearVR does not matter. Watch carmacks talk about the origin of the gearvr. Before oculus joined in – all they had was a fancy version of cardboard…

          • Armando Tavares

            Ok. I get it AND agree with you. We are not as far apart in point of view as you may think.

            Everyone in the world wants the best experience in *insert whatever here* as possible. However only a small part of the world is able to drop 1.000$ on a GC and CPU and even fewer will drop it just because of VR. People not being able to get what VR needs at present time is ultimately a bad thing for VR.

            I’m concerned about the future of VR and AR btw, because I think those ARE the future. It’s not a matter of ‘IF’. It’s a matter of ‘WHEN’ and I personally think the path chosen by Oculus/Vive isn’t the right one at present time but this is one of those things I wish I’m wrong about.

            If I was the ‘boss of bosses’ (and I deserve to be ^_^) and could decide about anything and everything VR related I’d aim for the masses first and think about premium stuff a little bit later.

            I’m no expert (you can just ignore me) but VR isn’t hardware driven. It can’t be. It’s content driven and the focus will be, sooner then we may think, on the people that produce content rather then whoever produces the device. Those people, those companies, those BUSINESSES need a set amount of public to justify assigning payed staff to produce said content. VR needs to reach out to as many as possible to gain critical mass and justify the ‘waste’ of money producing content from companies that exist now and draw more in as more and more users buy in. Oculus/Vive are platforms, much like a computer or a game console is. You get it because of all the stuff (content) you’ll have access to through owning one, not because of the machine itself.

            The all point is, what will draw people in is the content not the machine. Content wont be produced if not enough people get on board for whatever reason, AND price will be a BIG FAT reason not to board the VR chu-chu train.

          • DiGiCT Ltd

            You dont need to worry about it, it takes time to evolve.
            And product from this year will be cheaper next year.

            The first mobile devices were also not bought by the masses due to cost, but even more because there was not much intresting content.

            The same goes for VR and AR it takes time.

            If you just look at Pokemon GO it is not a full blown AR game but still lots of people like it already.

            Let that take away your worries. ;-)

        • DiGiCT Ltd

          Also no, if i love something or use it a lot i will buy the best.
          I dont want any cheap crap as there is no reason for me to buy cheap crap.

          Doing a good job in life lets you be able to enjoy the better stuff instead of being a person that needs to queue up for budget crap.

          That people dont make enough income is only themselves to blame, companies always pay for what you can do for them, if that is just basic job you cant expect to be payed high as you be replaceable by any other person.

          It is how economics work in this world.

          • Armando Tavares

            Thank you for answering.

            About the rest of your post after your answer… WOW!! I’m not in the mood to address any of that, so I wont. Ok?

          • Dobba

            “That people don’t make enough income is only themselves to blame”?

            Seriously, get off your high horse and return to reality. You’re making yourself sound like an arrogant self righteous and entitled p**** that has no idea about the real world.

          • DiGiCT Ltd

            Work hard and you be able to get what you want, complaining does not help you getting it.
            If 40 hours labour cant do it you work 80 hours to get it.

    • DiGiCT Ltd

      Sorry to say but you are wrong in many ways and your knowledge is too narrow based on what you wrote.

      1. oculus and vive are considered the high end VR products like apple claims that to be for phones in the past, if you cant pay for that thats your problem and not the creator.
      Else we could keep on nagging on about a Mercedes and Ferrari overpriced too, or even a rolex.
      Dont be angry about it being to expensive for you, it is how it is in life with high end stuff.

      2. You can expierence VR already on low end phones altho it will be mostly limit to 360 video.

      3. Also you can already play on cardbox for over a year which is very cheap.

      4. The sensor in a phone are not accurate, they only measure movement and not postion.
      Phones use for position GPS which is not accurate on mm distance which is required in VR

      5. a reasonable phone will still cost you around $400 for a descend VR expierence.

      6. there are VR garphic cards already for $300 so I suggest do your homework first before making wrong arguments.

      It is clear to me you have no idea about all of it, you nearly scratched the surface and you will never know the truth based on you biggest issue being money.

      I invested for 2 years already into AR and VR, did test , build prototypes and even more as you just mentioned.
      And yes it cost even several thousands of dollars to explore all of it, but at least i know what can and cant be done with each device, and this does not come from reading internet post but rather by internal R&D.

      Besides all this my company also has close connections to VR and phone manufacturers in China, even being there in person.

      My answer to all you say is simply NO, because you are wrong all the way and have a too narrow view.
      Sorry to say, but people deserve to know the truth and not some BS.

      FYI AR works great on most phones and tablets, you compare hololens for AR but that again shows you dont know a …. about things.

      • Armando Tavares

        In what way is my knowledge too narrow? I’m not spewing out ‘knowledge’. I’m stating an opinion based on what I believe and what phone like devices are able to do at present time. So, again: In what way is my knowledge too narrow?

        1. Oculus/Vive aren’t considered ‘high end VR products’. They are in fact the ONLY VR products and If ‘I’ (insert general public here) can’t pay for it, that is not MY problem. It’s Oculus and Vive’s problem. Because… I really don’t have a problem. I can either use or not and my life will remain more or less the same. Oculus and Vive on the other hand can’t say they wont have a problem if they don’t sell devices to a set number (and that number exists) of people.

        1.1 This has nothing to do with cars but since you brought it up, the car example is just you shooting yourself in the foot. Sorry to say. Where would the car industry be if in the beginning (of the industry, not the car as a concept), Henry Ford worried about catering to the premium users instead of the masses. Nowhere. That’s your answer. We have ‘Ferrari’s’ now because back then some one was bright enough to give the average Joe the opportunity to buy a car and other car manufacturers followed in his footsteps. Even now, where would the ‘Ferrari’s’ be without all the other stuff below them?? Again: Nowhere.

        1.2 How do you know it’s too expensive for me? You missed the point entirely.This isn’t about what is or isn’t too expensive for me.

        2. Yup. And that kinda proves my point of a cheap(er) device being possible.

        3. Sure. And..?

        4. Huh? What kind of sensors are you talking about?? Because I can play games that use phone movement as a way to control them just fine. Even in lower end phones.
        Even if those aren’t accurate enough to provide any sort or VR experience there are more accurate ones available. Samsung VR uses those for THAT purpose and the entire device doesn’t cost an arm and a leg so I’m guessing the sensors alone, despite being accurate, are pretty cheap.

        EDIT: When I saw your post, the one I replied to with this one, it was only readable until point 4. Did you add stuff in?? Anyway…. That’s why I didn’t address all your other points.. I’m sorry for that and I will address them now if you don’t mind.

        5. Hmmm….. Haven’t tested everything under the sky, so I can’t agree or disagree with you on that one.

        6. I assemble computer related hardware for a living. Like, everyday of my working week… and then some.
        There are 300$ VR ready GC’s. Ok. Thats a common fact. But where did I made wrong arguments regarding this point?
        When I talked about GCs prices I was replying to MasterElwood, that stated that he had bought a GTX1080 to drive VR related content.

        As to the rest of your post, wrong assumptions and e-pen measuring attempt aside: Sugar coat it all you want. In the end, VR, as most stuff in life is about people being able to get into it or not and that, for most people = money. You thinking it’s any different means you’re the one with the narrow view. Not me.

        PS. I know this is the internet and all but try to be a lite more polite.

        • DiGiCT Ltd

          1. Only oculus might have a problem, HTC still makes money on phones and valve still a lot in games.

          1.1 You try to ask cheaper prces for high end consumer vr and yes oculus and vive are currently the high ends.

          Additional to your statement there is also OSVR which is cheaper, but i dont see that in your list.
          Besides that there are even more but im not going to sum them up again, if you look good on the net you might see those others too or just find some older post i made.

          1.2 you started making the point that their failure was selling too high price.
          This is in 99% of the cases done by people which are not willing to pay for new tech, although like the tech but not willing or able to pay that amount.

          3. and this just shows you that there are cheaper ones already available making your topic subject just fall appart.

          4. those are calles gyro sensors and yes they work OK but fter a while you can get drifting, which means you not looking at the same direction in reality as you would look at the same spot you started.
          You mostly see that when you get out of vr after 10m and you end up standing in an other direction as that you started vieuwing at the same menu before ending.
          Postion tracking is what they use for postion tracked controllers and roomscale games.
          Mobile has limits on playing VR.

          If you still say mobile VR is good to play games, then i only can confirm you never played a full scale VR expierence or your VR requirements are realy low.

          • Armando Tavares

            This is getting WAY too confusing. You keep making wrong assumptions about whatever you think I think and you keep adding stuff to what I actually said. I can’t tell at this point if you can’t read or do that on purpose.

            I’m sorry for coming across like this but you talk about what I said, not about whatever you assume in your mind I did. If you have any doubts about what I write, ask. I’m more then happy to explain.

            I enjoy debating and talking about all kinds of stuff as long as it is productive and people are polite and conduct themselves and the conversation in an honest way.

            As to your post:
            1. Do you really believe that? With all the money thrown in…. do you actually believe HTC and Valve would be fine with the VR part of their business going belly up? Not to mention 2 BILLION DOLLAR Facebook baby, Oculus. If the business fails (and I hope it doesn’t) it would set VR back YEARS.

            1.1 I didn’t ask for cheaper high end consumer VR. Learn to read (sorry).

            There are a few more in development, yes. But I’m talking about finished, consumer versions. Not prototypes that may or may not see the light of day somewhere in the near future.
            OSVR could do it the right way if they keep the price for the finished consumer version…. witch they probably wont. Guess what will happen to the price tag when they stick a Razer label on it… BUT if they do, kudos for them.

            1.2 There you go assuming what kind of person I am. Maybe I’m just making a case for ALL the people that can’t buy it and me, personally, can?

            3. Please link me to a finished consumer version of the cheaper ones. Oculus was once ‘cheap’ too when is was still in development.

            4. I never said mobiles were suited to play VR or that they could replace in their current state Oculus/Vive. Again, learn to read.
            I theorized about a device (NOT a mobile phone ok?) using currently available tech that could be available to a wider crowd, in a wider content pool, for a lot less money.

          • DiGiCT Ltd

            Your topic form your first post was stating the problem of VR was that it is too expensive.
            Those were your own words not mines.
            As i said its not too expensive, maybe for most people but not for what it is at this moment as it is like other product in early stages and exclusive.
            It takes time beore it becomes cheaper and more used.
            My estimation is that next year there will be more VR users.

            I can tell you that now slowly some compnaies come forward requesting us to develop VR expierences for them, but i can also say that over 6 month nobody ask for it.
            That did not stop us making VR and learning more at all.
            Patience is a virtue, even though it looks like hyped, it takes time before many people will use it.

            At this time VR is not simply for everybody and it will never be.
            I had people liking VR big time, but i also had people they did not like it at all.
            Compare it to a movie, some people will like it, other will not, but if the movie would be different they eventually would like it too.

            Content is the key to succes in VR not the hardware, thats the minor part.
            Same happened to internet and mobile phones.
            It went hot at the time there was a lot of content for any liking.
            VR is not there yet but slowly it is getting there.

            You dont need to therize for devices as there are many existing, only not being here on RTVR does not mean they dont exist.



          • Armando Tavares

            Finally. A nice post. Thank you :)

            Yes I did say and I believe VR hardware price point at this time may hurt, or at least slow down, VR as a business but this doesn’t mean I’m right. In fact I hope I’m NOT.

            I agree, content is key to the success of VR, in fact I said so answering a post of MasterElwood (a little below) and that’s the main reason why I believe in what I believe.

            A window to my thought process ^_^ :

            1 ‘My thought process is awesome :P
            10 High VR device price
            20 Less buyers
            30 Smaller potential content buyer pool
            40 Greater risk of content makers to produce VR related content
            50 Less content
            60 Less people buying new devices (even if they get cheaper) because of the lack of content
            70 Small growth in potential content buyers
            80 Go to 40

            All jokes aside, I’m rooting for VR (and AR). I really am. And I hope the business as a whole takes off next year in order to bring VR to the main stream during 2018.

          • DiGiCT Ltd

            Nothing is certain in life, with exeption of your birthday.
            Everything needs to be tried, else we always stuck in the same circle without progress.

            I always thinking about the glass with water…. is it half full or half empty ??

            I choose to go into VR and AR development because I know this is going to be sooner or later going to happen.
            I never expect everyone doing it, as my wife is a good example for me, she does not like vr because all the hassle needed before you get into VR and the big device in your face, she just dont like it.

            That made me thinking, most women will even not go into VR as it can ruin their cosmetics, they just think different, although not all women care about it, still a lot do.

            Therefor i predict it will be mostly children and the males doing VR.
            The other part I see AR going to be the big deal for females, but also for males and kids.
            AR thefor has a bigger future on userbase, but the perfect hardware for it is not there yet.
            VR is not mostly the HMD doing it, the real power still comes from the VGA and as we know there are 4k screens already but it also comes with a double render performance card required.

            Lots of things are still in the dark atm, but it does not let me feel that it is not possible or a failure.

            The biggest point is to adjust to curernt possibilites and try to make the best out of it.

            Everyone is a newbee in a way in this field atm.
            Luckily enough I been building lots of prototypes for 2 years already for ar and vr, and i can say the latest HMD are realy not that bad as what i used before.

            Content is indeed the key, although i know and see a lot of crap VR stuff too, but it does not mean it fails.
            The content that fails are games being ported to VR and players dishonest telling it is not making them sick or giving it the wrong rating.

            For FPS games they keep trying all ways, as fps games are very popular, just in VR they dont work right.

            Can only say 2 apraoches went ok for Locomotion in VR, 1 was treadmill and 2nd was the RIP motion way.
            All the others are making sick or breaking the immersion, it just does not feel right.
            Honest reviews can only help us devs to make the good content.

            Maybe this helps you understand my POV and eventually you can see what your part is in all this making a success ;-)

        • DiGiCT Ltd


          1. Only oculus might have a problem, HTC still makes money on phones and valve still a lot in games.

          1.1 You try to ask cheaper prces for high end consumer vr and yes oculus and vive are currently the high ends.

          Additional to your statement there is also OSVR which is cheaper, but i dont see that in your list.
          Besides that there are even more but im not going to sum them up again, if you look good on the net you might see those others too or just find some older post i made.

          1.2 you started making the point that their failure was selling too high price.
          This is in 99% of the cases done by people which are not willing to pay for new tech, although like the tech but not willing or able to pay that amount.

          3. and this just shows you that there are cheaper ones already available making your topic subject just fall appart.

          4. those are calles gyro sensors and yes they work OK but fter a while you can get drifting, which means you not looking at the same direction in reality as you would look at the same spot you started.
          You mostly see that when you get out of vr after 10m and you end up standing in an other direction as that you started vieuwing at the same menu before ending.
          Postion tracking is what they use for postion tracked controllers and roomscale games.
          Mobile has limits on playing VR.

          If you still say mobile VR is good to play games, then i only can confirm you never played a full scale VR expierence or your VR requirements are realy low.

    • MaxieGast

      To make VR any good, you gotta start making them good. If the product sucks, why would people buy it? You’re talking about the price and all, but what you’re forgetting is the product itself. The product is what sells a product not the price!
      There is a 3$ phone on the market at the moment, that’s very cheap. But are you buying it? No. Because other phones that cost more are better. So you still buy those because you want something good, which you can be happy with, not something that’s really cheap but doesn’t do it’s work good enough.
      Once people start liking the product, they’ll buy it.

      Oculus and HTC won’t die because oculus got facebook and htc sells phones and has valve on their side. Those are both big companies, they know what they’re doing. If they thought the product would fail, they would’ve already quit building it.

      • Armando Tavares

        Sup Maxie. Thank you for answering dude :)

        I agree with you in one key issue: The first VR products that hit the market have to provide a flawless VR experience. So, yes, you have to start making them good. However… good for ‘what’? What is the ‘purpose’ of the device? Don’t answer ‘VR’ because as we are all starting to realize that means A LOT of different things. They probably aimed too high and now are forced to charge too much.

        Phones, since you talked about them, are actually a good example. Of course almost no one would buy a 3$ phone, but only a few would buy a 3.000$ one, even if it’s good.

        What I find flawed with almost every VR related reasoning I read about is the belief that people WILL pay for it if it’s good enough and they like it.

        There is a sweet spot phones (for example) are better sold at and at any given time, there is a price barrier phone makers will try not to break. This price barrier may move around from one year to another but it exists make no mistake about it. Why do you think stuff gets replaced by newer, better, more powerful models but, phones, computers, cameras, cars, etc seem to have the same price year in, year out? Because they understand what the public is willing to pay for a ‘budget’ *whatever*. For a ‘mid-range’ *whatever*. Or for a ‘high end’ *whatever*. And even though phone makers have been successful at stretching the upper limit of the price spectrum, the average price people get phones for is DROPING, imagine that. People are spending less and less money (in average) on a phone even though the most expensive ones, this year, have a bigger price tag then the most expensive ones in, say, 2012.

        Here’s your proof: https://www.statista.com/statistics/484583/global-average-selling-price-smartphones/

        So…. Why isn’t the average price INCREASING as more and more people buy the high-end stuff because, if it’s good and people like they will buy it, right?

        The problem with VR, however, is WAY more complex. People have been using phones for A LONG time, so it’s easy to introduce them to a newer better product and get them to buy it. But what will happen if you present a new product, something that doesn’t exist in today’s market, something that has a ‘heavy’ (in my personal opinion) price tag and that the public (sorry to say) does not need? It’s any one’s guess…

        I’ll just finish this by mentioning ANOTHER product. Something that was seen at the time as a revolution and that looked and felt almost as if it came out from some sci-fi big budget movie. The inventor/maker was supposed to make GAZILIONS of dollars of profit because, it was a REALLY good product (it really was) and people liked it. Steve Jobs even predicted that THAT product would have as great an impact as the personal computer. Can you guess what it was? Does the name SEGWAY ring a bell? Even though it wasn’t a complete failure, it didn’t do nearly (NEARLLY!!!!!) as well as people thought AND part of it was price related because it ultimately drove the product to a market that didn’t want/need it.

        Again, don’t get all I said as me rooting for VR to fail ok? We are on the same side here :) . I want it to succeed and be present in every home in the world. I’m just stating my personal opinion regarding some bad calls made by VR companies (again.. my opinion).

    • disqus_1S1GyNUnq5

      there is always christmas. you could say “mom, puh-leeeease?” … problem solved. for everybody else. see that you work in a job where you are able to afford your hobby. simple as that.
      the real accelerator is as always the porn industry. right now i do not see that many offerings, so it’s still in a make-or-break-phase. as soon as the porn industry embraced it, the prices will drop. not sooner.

  • I do not think it will be too costly for us.

  • “as soon as possible” does mean nothing :)

  • Adrian Mason

    Zero VR 2 IN 1 Case – Virtual reality case cell phone cover. Is it good? Well, the answer is simply astonishing. The first time I heard about it, I had a slight doubt about the quality. However, the quality of the product proves me wrong. This glasses not only affordable for any people but easy to use. Any people able to use it even he or her not tech-savvy. For more information, visit: https://www.iwearvr.net/products/zero-vr-2-in-1-case-virtual-reality-case-cell-phone-cover

  • Joy

    Its finally launched.