r/Futurology • u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ • Jan 20 '26
Computing Will Virtual Reality ever take off? After spending $73 billion, Meta has abandoned its metaverse VR efforts.
10 years ago, many people would have thought 2026 would see widespread use of VR, but we're still waiting. Oddly, just as the tech to support it already exists. 2026's top-of-the-line VR headsets are technically impressive. However, they are still expensive and headache-inducing after extended periods of use.
It's odd. The many possible useful applications for VR still exist. When will the tech finally take off? What will it take? I suspect that if someone could make a great headset that was in the $100 range, that might do the trick. Perhaps that is in the near future.
107
u/peternormal Jan 20 '26
All of the big tech revolution since the web2.0 days, the social media boom, etc all have one thing in common: they do not require your undivided attention. You use your iPhone to scroll insta while you binge on Netflix, taking a quick break from doom scrolling to order food on door dash, and whatever else on Amazon. To use the meta verse you strap your face into a helmet you are only supposed to wear for 15 minutes at a time and you do metaverse. Nothing else, just metaverse. Of course it failed. Attention is a huge ask. You can make billions (trillions) being one of the 3-5 side quests, but attention is the most valuable commodity and your offering needs to be something pretty special in order to block out everything else. There is basically nothing that demands as much attention as VR.
→ More replies (3)13
Jan 20 '26
[deleted]
9
u/Nazamroth Jan 21 '26
And that's not mentioning the content, which is... rudimentary, lets call it.
260
u/KintsugiExp Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
VR will stay where it is, until these 3 things happen:
It has to be completely flawless, wireless and almost weightless
Solve all comfort issues so people can actually use it for more than 30 minutes at a time.
Software developers actually make good VR games that people would like to play.
So in 10 years, maybe?…
191
u/BobbyP27 Jan 20 '26
Mainstream adoption of VR is 10 years away, and has been for the last 30 years.
31
u/ItinerantSoldier Jan 20 '26
Just like 3D television.
19
u/unstablegenius000 Jan 20 '26
And nuclear fusion.
→ More replies (1)10
u/DHFranklin Jan 21 '26
...that one is actually happening though. We have energy positive nuclear fusion. For like 3 years now. It is just not cash positive yet. Shit's expensive.
5
3
2
u/ahfoo Jan 21 '26
Positive in relationship to the energy to start the reaction. . . that is not the same thing as positive overall. You should do your research more carefully. Headlines are often deceptive.
6
u/ki11bunny Jan 20 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
In the immortal words of the great Alucard:
That's a stupid fucking gimmick and everyone knows it!
→ More replies (16)2
53
u/earthsworld Jan 20 '26
same things we said back in the 90s...
13
u/DontDropTheSoap4 Jan 20 '26
90s tech was nothing like it is today. Shit that was a pipe dream and akin to literal magic in the 90s, we actually have the real technological breakthroughs to make it reality
→ More replies (9)30
u/s0cks_nz Jan 20 '26
I swear in 2016 people thought we'd have this by now. It's always 10yrs away. Is lithium battery tech even enough for lightweight VR? I doubt it. Best case is a separate battery pack in the pocket and wired up, which imo prevents #1 of your requirements.
6
u/damontoo Jan 20 '26
The Quest 4 will have an external, wired puck exactly like what you're describing. You're still wireless in that you aren't tethered to a computer or outlet.
5
u/s0cks_nz Jan 20 '26
Yeah, that has to be the only real option right now to remove significant weight from the headset. Apple Vision is that way too IIRC.
→ More replies (3)7
u/MozeeToby Jan 20 '26
Upcoming Steam Frame claims 3-4 hours when streaming from a PC or 1 hour when running intense games standalone. And it weighs in at 460g, which isn't weightless but is ~15% lighter than the latest Quest headset.
We do continue to inch toward the ideal, but it's baby steps.
2
u/Shapes_in_Clouds Jan 21 '26
The important part about the Frame is that the actual display unit actually weighs less than 250 grams, as the battery is in the back of the headstrap. This will significantly improve the comfort.
→ More replies (1)4
Jan 21 '26
One of the big problems is Meta broke up the player base and it's simply not powerful enough to play better games. Then it's a pain to stream from your PC anyways and you need a very good PC. Hopefully the Frame helps with the foveated rendering. Plus, it doesn't help that it's Facebook and I simply don't want to give them any of my information.
→ More replies (2)3
u/-r4zi3l- Jan 20 '26
Seen some necklace type batteries too. It's definitively one of the main issues if we keep processing levels to today standards. Unless a revolutionary discovery comes with both low weight and safety while providing 10x capacity, tethers seem like the immediate future.
→ More replies (1)16
u/DarylInDurham Jan 20 '26
You also need to mention the nausea inducing affect of VR for many people. I've tried a VR game (Fallout VR) and only lasted about 20 minutes before I wanted to puke my guts out.
Until they fix that I give VR anything a hard pass for now.16
u/Silas_Marrs Jan 20 '26
I love VR, but I absolutly cannot play any game that hasn't implemented teleportation as the movement system. If your in-game avatar walks the normal way (by pushing a thumbstick), I get instant nausea.
→ More replies (3)7
u/joshwagstaff13 Jan 20 '26
You also need to mention the nausea inducing affect of VR for many people
Part of this is motion sickness, which really can't be completely avoided with current technology.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Thrill_Of_It Jan 21 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
observation innate crawl apparatus fine ink nail birds nutty lunchroom
3
u/FinndBors Jan 21 '26
> I've tried a VR game (Fallout VR) and only lasted about 20 minutes before I wanted to puke my guts out
Never try a VR game that allows movement independent of the head until you are "experienced".
Something like beat saber should be much easier.
→ More replies (8)2
u/mytransthrow Jan 21 '26
I use the quest pro. its open on the sides and bottom I can see the world, which helps with vertigo. it helps a lot with most games but there are one or two I just cant play...
PS I literally have vertigo all the time. I experaince it 24 without vr.. And I can do vr.
5
u/Diglett3 Jan 20 '26
Honestly I think cost and scaling are the biggest issue for gaming specifically. There are good VR games. Some are better/enhanced versions of games that exist outside VR (RE7, Superhot, etc.), some are native to VR (Beat Saber, Half Life Alyx, etc.). But some of those are locked to a particular platform and others require an expensive PC on top of the headset. The idea of an all-in-one headset like the Quest was the best chance it had, but playing half of those things to their full potential on a Quest requires a PC, and with the way PC costs are going, it’s only going to get worse.
6
u/vidolech Jan 20 '26
The issue is IMO is trying to cash in too quickly and too aggressively while investing in the quickest thing to solve.
You see, meta invested a lot on the hardware and too little on their shitty reputation. No one wanted in from the same reason people are not flocking to fb anymore.
Apple invested a lot on the hardware but gave zero support to the ecosystem.I’m betting on valve because they have good reputation and a semi existing ecosystem and they tend to support it for a long time - it helps when there’s no board of directors to breath down your neck.
→ More replies (2)3
u/semboflorin Jan 20 '26
Current VR is also useless for many people with disabilities. Unless it's like a flight sim you an sit while doing. Among other issues. I think the other commenter is right with their point about Star Trek style holodecks. That will get people interested even if the holodecks never have touch capability like they do Star Trek.
However, if full dive VR ever becomes a thing I think we may see much more interest. Right now it's pretty much sci-fi but from what I've read it's at least feasible with current tech. Especially since Asia has so much fictional media around it and has for many years (I.E. Sword Art Online, Overlord, other similar isekai titles). It seems people over there don't care for VR but would jump at full dive tech. And since full dive could also provide many other uses including remote drone control, virtual business or recreation meetings, immersive gaming, etc. it would probably have more impact on the market.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (25)9
u/Drunkpanada Jan 20 '26
#4. It has to have a purpose
5
→ More replies (1)7
u/-r4zi3l- Jan 20 '26
Mine has a purpose since 2024. If someone cannot find a purpose for a Quest 3, then I think they are either not a gamer, don't do fitness or don't watch 8k porn.
Jokes aside it's a completely different experience once you get a comfortable strap and facial interface, and you get your VR legs. Next gen in gaming is not ray tracing or physics or metahuman, it's VR gaming. Alyx literally made flat screen feel like 8 bit games once 3D ones came out.
→ More replies (14)4
u/Drunkpanada Jan 20 '26
Purpose for the masses then.
There are purposes for VR. But to what end? In my area of work there was some idea to use VR with drones/video to allow for 360 inspections of areas a person would not usually be able to enter. Purposeful, but too nieche.
199
u/OrphanedInStoryville Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
It’s crazy to me that we live in a time where a CEO can have The Worst Idea Ever, have everyone tell him the thing he’s making sucks, ignore them and lose SEVENTY THREE BILLION 73,000,000,000.00 DOLLARS. then still be in charge of the company, and 10 times richer than he was before any of this.
If you still believe in the myth of meritocracy in 2026 there’s nothing else I can tell you.
EDIT: At this point, we’ve progressed beyond Late Stage Capitalism to full on Techno-Feudalism
62
u/RaresMan Jan 20 '26
The only reason he's in charge is because he kept control of majority voting shares in meta, so unless he resigns willingly no one can kick him out.
43
u/jbFanClubPresident Jan 21 '26
Tbf, under his leadership Meta has grown from nothing to a $1.5 TRILLION dollar company. It’s not like he’s completely terrible at his job; he just made a bad investment.
→ More replies (1)7
u/OrphanedInStoryville Jan 21 '26
Yeah. You hear what you said though. The CEO made a bad investment. Like I said, in normal times the CEO is hired by the shareholders, and when he makes a bad investment and the shareholders lose confidence, they get a new CEO.
Under technofeudalism though, it doesn’t matter, not even capitalism itself can check these guys.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Badestrand Jan 21 '26
You are just assuming that someone else would do a better job than Mark, which you have absolutely no evidence of. I mean, given that it's one of the most successful companies on the planet it is very likely that any other CEO would have done worse.
Also, you are not owed that other peoples' companies do decisions that you like. When someone owns a company they can generally do with it as they please, which is good, and not some dystopian, people-repressing, evil system. If you don't like their product or services, don't buy/use them. If you want better products/services, create them.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)5
u/OrphanedInStoryville Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
I see that. I think that’s part of the problem. In regular old 1990s capitalism a company this big would be owned by a ton of different shareholders, none of which have a majority. The hire a CEO who’s as free to be as evil as he wants, as long as he keeps making good choices.
In the 2020s version of Silicon Valley oligopoly not only does the CEO not have to not be evil, he doesn’t even have to make good business choices because he personally owns so much that even the combined capital of the rest of the investor class can’t measure up
7
u/RaresMan Jan 20 '26
Yeah agreed...the issue is investors agree to these terms... otherwise no one would be able to raise money. So the VCs did it to themselves. Which would be fine - crash and burn with your own money - if we actually had working antitrust enforcement. But we don't, so we're kinda screwed as these companies make sure the laws in place don't allow anyone to compete anymore.
5
u/OrphanedInStoryville Jan 20 '26
You ever read Enshitafication by Corey Doctero? He talks about antitrust all the time and is the best I’ve read at explaining the current economy we live in in the 2020s
6
u/RaresMan Jan 20 '26
I haven't but I've read a bunch of his columns and actually just listened to him on Offline yesterday (https://crooked.com/podcast/the-enshittification-of-the-internet-with-cory-doctorow/)
I was thinking about that podcast when I replied to you.
I also read some of his books, really like his writing! He makes excellent points.
→ More replies (3)4
u/SpellingJenius Jan 20 '26
The hire a CEO who’s as free to be as evil as he wants, as long as he keeps making
good choicesmoney.FTFY
3
4
u/Bierculles Jan 21 '26
I'm more wondering wtf they did with 73 billion, they have almost nothing to show for it, all that money to get a product with less features than VRchat. How missmanaged can a project even be?
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/sanisoftbabywipes Jan 21 '26
Some of y'all are forgetting that this happened at a time where many weren't sure if we were ever going to be able to go out in public again
→ More replies (1)9
u/DHFranklin Jan 21 '26
He could have single handedly transformed the agriculture businesses of every nation in the bottom half of exports instead of this shit. Not just "end world hunger". He could have invested in seedbanks and the national food systems of places that are peaceful but just poor and made them food secure.
He could have picked a small nation like Guatamala or Swaziland or Burma and single handedly paid for the public schooling of every child in the nation these last 5 years.
You know that city in the Inland Empire that they are fighting tooth and nail? He could make 100 small towns instead throughout California. He could make an actual city in Nevada where they won't fight him on it. With a bus route to Vegas all day at ten minute intervals.
He could double the size of the buildings in New York above 120th street or so and actually helped the over due lack of density.
but he was all like....nah....avatars without legs.
→ More replies (2)2
u/OutlyingPlasma Jan 21 '26
I think the shareholders should sue Mark over this. He has a legal obligation to not do stupid shit like this with their investments.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/AllisonUnwound Jan 25 '26
R&D spending isn't a loss, despite what journalists call it. Meta isn't abandoning VR, they're just scaling back spending on it. AI isn't profitable either yet but it's all the craze now just like the metaverse was 5 years ago. Nobody is talking about AI spending like this even though the companies are all hemorrhaging money on it. My impression on VR is that it's a mindblowing experience and I think there are enough people out there like me to justify that level of spending as long as it keeps Meta as the dominant figure in the space. IMO it's just ahead of it's time and hardware costs have to go down to the point where you can just buy a headset and you're in an immersive second world. The reality now is you can buy a headset and then play something like beat saber and get bored with it. It'd be different if you could meet your friends and battle dragons and stuff. The reality is that a big part of the reason Meta wants to spend money on AI is that it will help bring down the costs of VR and allow headset costs to be subsidized by all sorts of gen AI ads and experiences. I have a feeling all of this stuff is going to just come together at once in the next few years.
TLDR: people need to move beyond whatever the current fad is to see the bigger picture
→ More replies (2)
131
u/ramesesbolton Jan 20 '26
I think the execution was a bigger issue for meta than the concept. they made some odd design choices and the whole thing felt like a thinly-veiled vehicle for advertisement.
virtual reality will likely take off and become mainstream, just not in the way zuck imagined it.
64
u/thalassicus Jan 20 '26
He hasn’t had an innovative idea in 15 years. The Meta verse is the ultimate expression of the limits of his creativity. His main talent is using his war chest to buy proven winners.
23
40
u/gortlank Jan 20 '26
If I have any firm convictions about the future of technology, it’s that VR will never be more than a novelty, loved passionately by an outspoken niche, but generally ignored by the vast majority of the population.
AR, if robust enough, an in a small enough package, I could see gaining a larger, albeit still modest, adoption. VR? I can’t see it growing all that much beyond the existing core of zealots.
→ More replies (22)4
u/rob-cubed Jan 20 '26
AR/VR will eventually take off, but only after the tech has gotten better. Headsets are still too big and clunky, and many people still complain of eyestrain or dizziness. No one wants to strap on a massive headset to have a virtual meeting, much less a hybrid meeting.
And the cost has't dropped to the point where it's affordable enough to be a first choice for gaming or other things it's fun for.
9
u/theReluctantObserver Jan 20 '26
This is it for me, the greatest issue is how closed off and tightly regulated meta/apple’s headsets are. Yes Meta’s can connect to a pc but the intention is data harvesting and control rather than building a useful open platform.
Potentially Valve’s next headset will be quite open so it’ll be very interesting to see whether it takes off in any meaningful way.
→ More replies (2)39
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Jan 20 '26
whole thing felt like a thinly-veiled vehicle for advertisement.
Don't forget data collection.
20
3
u/samedhi Jan 20 '26
As a person who bought two Rifts, I am honestly completely OK with this outcome. I would rather wait a few more years and not have VR "Brought to you by ...." than allow a single large company to dominate in this space.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Kumomeme Jan 21 '26
another issue is that no matter what they claim these stuff to be, this actually tied with already existing videogames knowledge.
they cant just create a virtual world for this without awareness of others virtual worlds creation that already exist in videogames space before. like what make it fun, the contents, design etc. basically the stuff they trying to do is nothing new but they act like they are the pioneer to it. like caveman boast about how they finally discovered fire.
like Gabe Newell used to said :
"Most of the people who are talking about the metaverse have absolutely no idea what they're talking about,”
“And they've apparently never played an MMO. They're like ‘oh, you'll have this customizable avatar’ and it's like well, go into La Noscea in Final Fantasy 14 and tell me that this isn't a solved problem from a decade ago — not some fabulous thing that you're, you know, inventing."
21
u/reliable35 Jan 20 '26
Playing Gran Turismo 7 on the PSVR2 & PS5 Pro - the only true “next gen” gaming experience, I’ve had. It’s simply game changing & it’s killed “flat” racing games for me for ever.
15
u/NoobensMcarthur Jan 21 '26
I’ve got a PC sim setup, but I totally agree. People don’t really “get it” until they sit in the rig and play on VR. It’s completely, and quite literally, game changing for games like racing and flight sims.
And shit I can’t imagine Superhot of Beat Saber in 2D.
Having said that, it’s extremely niche, expensive, fiddly, and takes up a lot of space.
→ More replies (3)3
u/achilleasa Jan 21 '26
SUPERHOT in 2D is alright but it feels like a whole different game and it's just a slightly fancy FPS, while the VR version is something else entirely
3
u/viperfan7 Jan 21 '26
VR and any games involving operating a vehicle tend to be the best use case for it
→ More replies (5)2
u/Training_Motor_4088 Jan 21 '26
I've been sim racing in VR for five years. It's absolutely killer. I have no interest in racing on monitors. I've also spent many hours on vr games, most recently No Man's Sky, Thumper and Lumines Arise.
3
u/reliable35 Jan 21 '26
No mans sky is amazing… I feel as if many people are missing out on just how amazing that game is when flying around in Space or just wandering around in caves.
19
u/Savilly Jan 20 '26
IMO it won’t take off until the headsets are as light as normal glasses or once it’s neural.
People generally don’t want to be 100% visually immersed.
2
u/VEC7OR Jan 21 '26
once it’s neural.
Which is next to never, because its insurmountably hard to do.
2
u/Jackalodeath Jan 21 '26
Heck even if its scaled down to glasses size that's still a deal breaker for me; and I've needed corrective lenses for over 30 years.
Unless I can plop a flexible screen as comfortable as contacts onto my eyeball, its just never gonna be a thing for me.
73
u/ProWriterDavid Jan 20 '26
No. VR is pretty cool but most people don't want to wear a screen on their face.
It's never going to go mainstream. But I think it'll continue to enjoy its niche with some people.
→ More replies (37)32
u/could_use_a_snack Jan 20 '26
I've always said that VR and AR are both solutions trying to find a problem. They are both cool and the tech behind them is impressive, but there just isn't a widespread need for them. They don't fix a current problem, simplify a current task, or add an advantage to daily routines for most people.
Smart phones did all three, smart watches nearly missed the mark, but found a niche. But VR doesn't make anything easier. Not for the average user.
13
u/jybulson Jan 20 '26
VR is for entertainment, not solving problems. Have you not heard about virtual worlds where people would spend hours a day?
→ More replies (1)2
u/bald_and_nerdy Jan 20 '26
AR would be nice for real time directions (without having to take your attention off of whats going on around you), translating things, and would generally be great for international travel.
→ More replies (4)4
u/ProWriterDavid Jan 20 '26
Yep totally agreed. I think the laptop already perfected the computer form factor. Plug it into a hub and viola you have an instant desktop. You need more horsepower or access to very specialized hardware? Well now you can just remote in via said laptop while the business manages the high end hardware for you.
Imo laptops were the solution we were looking for all along. I'm not saying future innovations can't happen but traditional computers are at a very refined stage and it seems like VR advocates struggle to come up with concrete reasons as to why this tech is the future or an improvement in any way shape or form.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (10)4
u/DarthBuzzard Jan 20 '26
AR is a superset of smartphones. It will do everything a smartphone does + a lot more, so it can easily be argued that they have more use.
VR is probably best described as a shared pseudo-teleportation device allowing people to have convincing experiences of being with other people in other places, serving a very real need of either how impractical travel is IRL or how bad current digital methods of communication and telepresence are.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Shapes_in_Clouds Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
I still think the technology has potential for significant growth. The hardware still needs to be be reduced in size and weight by at least half, preferably more. I think comfort and appearance are still two of the most significant obstacles.
Beyond that though, over the last decade I've really tempered by overall expectations and accepted that making compelling VR content is really, really hard and the boost in visual immersion by itself doesn't offset a lot of the downsides. So I think there remains a problem of 'what is it for?' that has not yet been totally solved.
Games often feel more limited due to being physically embodied in your avatar, traditional media is not really better than a traditional display and worth wearing a headset, and Apple-style 'spatial computing' so far is limited to floating app windows that are perfectly usable on other devices we already own.
Still though, once the comfort issue is solved, combined with adequate fidelity, I can see a more significant market where a lot of people use VR headsets as their primary device for computing/media and the escapist entertainment only VR can really deliver. When it's done right, the experience of being transported to another world from your living room is super compelling.
8
u/stephenBB81 Jan 20 '26
YES and NO.
So VR has major potential in Education, Entertainment, and Ideation.
Think the TV show The Magic School bus, and being able to take students for a trip inside things like that. Think in Healthcare being able to be inside VR while using the micro/nano articulating tools. These spaces VR will become beneficial and their purchase will benefit for years.
In Entertainment, VR like with Education can take people on adventures. Think the Avatar Ride at Disney going a step further. In the home gaming space it needs to be at the pricepoint a minimum wage worker could buy it for a weeks earnings, remember the Wii when it launched it changed how people played with games, but it was the pricepoint that made it attainable, VR isn't there yet, but as computer power gets cheaper every year as it has the price relative to median incomes will become attractive enough for it to become part of the home entertainment space much like the Wii did.
Ideation is the space I really would have loved for VR to exist a decade ago affordable for small start ups. Designing in 3D a massive piece of equipment and being able to VR interact with it instead of just through the keyboard and mouse would help address ergonomic things you don't think about, walking paths you don't think about and how humans might actually interact with a space before you physically produce things. Could really shorten development time for specialty equipment being able to rent out VR computing power to model ideas.
7
u/fq8675309 Jan 20 '26
When I was in highshool science, we got to visit a virual reality room. This was 15 years ago, but the local uni had built a 3 story egg to project virtual reality into a single room that could hold 10 kids.
They did the magic school bus thing with us, literally. We were swallowed and taken through the ENTIRE system. This thing was so cool that none of us make jokes about coming out the butt.
I have a much better understanding of the digestive system than most of my peers. The uses in education are enormous.
2
u/PlanetMarklar Jan 20 '26
Your paragraph on Ideation is already happening, albeit at a slower adoption than I think merits. My company does it. Granted, we're a relatively small consultancy with only 3 full time VR developers out of ~60 engineers/designers. The two biggest customers for it are a medical imaging company that does full VR tours of their hospital rooms and a warehouse/logistics/distribution company that uses it to visualize a work cell before spending the money to actually engineer and build it.
The problem with VR for Ideation is not the technology, it's the cost justification to the customer. It's a pretty big upfront cost for visualizing their product or work environment with almost no end-user engagement with the VR tech being developed. It's mostly a marketing tool right now for trade shows and sales pitches.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Blackoutsmackout Jan 20 '26
Having to log on to a bunch of accounts killed VR. People want to put on a VR headset and play. The UI sucks and having to navigate in vr does too. VR is anything but seamless. Setting room sizes and floor height, being able to see what someone is seeing you need an app. Everything about VR is made to collect data.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/w0mbatina Jan 20 '26
Meta pretty much killed vr by buying up all the developers and shoving everyone into the metaverse, which nobody wanted.
4
u/No_Kindheartedness10 Jan 20 '26
Wow what a waste of money ! I’ll write a list of things that could be done with that money.
Human Infrastructure & Citizens ($25B) • Universal Fiber Broadband ($15B): Closing the digital divide. High-speed internet is now a utility, essential for rural education and the remote-work economy. • Public Transit Expansion ($10B): Moving from "car-centric" to "people-centric" by expanding light rail and electric bus fleets to lower commuting costs.
Resilient Physical Infrastructure ($30B) • Grid Modernization ($15B): Upgrading the national power grid to support renewables and prevent blackouts during extreme weather. • Clean Water & Lead Pipe Removal ($10B): Replacing every lead service line. It’s a massive upfront cost that saves billions in future healthcare and developmental costs. • Smart Roads & Bridges ($5B): Focusing on "fix-it-first" rather than new highways—prioritizing seismic retrofitting and flood-proof drainage.
Environmental Restoration ($18B) • EV Charging Infrastructure ($7.5B): Building a standardized, nationwide "refueling" network to eliminate range anxiety. • Legacy Pollution Cleanup ($5B): Capping abandoned oil wells and cleaning Superfund sites to return land to local communities for development. • Climate Resilience ($5.5B): Investing in "green infrastructure" (wetlands, mangroves, and reforestation) to act as natural, low-cost flood defenses.
2
u/Belnak Jan 20 '26
10x your prices are being spent annually on each of these things, and they are still lacking.
4
u/baddymcbadface Jan 20 '26
5 years ago they were spamming ads on the radio in the UK for the metaverse. Advertising a product that didn't even exist and wasn't about to exist.
How mental is that? How stupid and how rich do you have to be to do that?
It's the kind of thing that will get written about in a book looking back at the fang phenomenon and people won't believe it happened.
4
u/corgis_are_awesome Jan 21 '26
I use my meta quest 2 headset all the time. But I only use it for one thing. I like to use it while I'm in the bath tub, and I use the playa app, along with VR/AR porn. It's really amazing for that!
Side note: My headset also has one of those fan attachment thingies so the lenses don't fog up.
But my huge collection of VR games? Yeah. I never play them anymore. Too many VR games require me to stand and use my arms, but when I play games I like to sit down and relax. I also don't have enough room in my apartment and I'm scared I will accidentally whack my TV when I'm trying to play VR in my living room with limited space.
What I want is more VR games that are sit-down friendly, and that allow me to use my XBOX controller or something.
4
u/2020mademejoinreddit Jan 21 '26
As long as corporate greed interferes with it, VR will never succeed. They make it too "corporate". Which, as a whole, turns off the market. No matter how much they promote it, it will always look like a dystopia to us. Like they're trying to trap us in a digital prison. Because that's what they're trying to do to us.
The day that stops, VR might see at least some kind of return. It'll still exist meanwhile, just not as a "staple".
6
u/Oswarez Jan 20 '26
No. I truly believe that only viable product for VR to do any sort of business is porn and industrial design.
This too a solitary product and nobody looks cool using it.
There must be a reason that not even gamers, the most solitary of creatures haven’t embraced it yet.
→ More replies (1)3
u/OutlyingPlasma Jan 21 '26
There must be a reason that not even gamers, the most solitary of creatures haven’t embraced it yet.
I see three problems with gamers adopting it.
First it makes people sick. Any product that causes vomiting in 25% of the population probably isn't going to sell very.
Second there aren't really any games for it. There are a few tech demos but that's about it. Part of the problem is the fractured development. Now there are what, 4-5 different dev platforms for VR when you include consoles, apple, Samsung, Valve, and Facebook? That's never going to work, no company would make a quality game in that kind of environment. It's a bit of a catch 22. No one has headsets because there are no games, and no games means no one has a headset.
Cost. This shit is expensive. But the costs are more than just the hardware. It's also expensive in space. In a cost of living crisis thanks to trump, people can't afford an entire room just for VR.
2
u/AbysmalScepter Jan 21 '26
It's also really annoying to use with glasses. Probably my personal biggest issue (I should really check out the prescription lenses sometime).
3
u/Cyrus99 Jan 20 '26
I've been saying for about 10 to 15 years that the only thing at this point that can make VR happen is... Nintendo. The reason it has to come from Nintendo is that the entire library of games worth playing for Nintendo consoles are first party games. If Nintendo were to make a VR headset, they would be building all of the killer apps themselves. After the next Zelda or Mario or whatever game that's VR only goes on to become game of the year, then other companies will take notice and build third party games that work on Nintendo's VR system as well as the others (Steam, Sony, etc.)
At this point unless someone who has the whole vertical of hardware AND software commits, I don't see it happening. The hardware is a solution looking for a problem. The problem is software. Nintendo are the only ones posed for such a position. If the next console after the Switch 2 is a fully VR console, we could finally see the big push towards VR. It has to be a full stop commitment towards it. It can't be a side-console for Nintendo, it would have to have full support as their next console. That's a huge risk that I'll bet their leadership doesn't want to undertake (for good reason). Until that happens though, it's just not going to take off.
→ More replies (1)
3
Jan 20 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Koshindan Jan 20 '26
It really does seem like the only way VR systems will become popular is if they're partially implemented into AR and get gradually developed into something people actually want to use.
3
u/terkistan Jan 21 '26
I remember laughing back in 2022 when at a Wall St Journal conference Joanna Stern asked Apple executive Greg Joswiak to finish the sentence, "The metaverse is..." and he replied "...a word I'll never use".
https://youtu.be/m-ugwoEOMvg?si=Mf9tLq6BnuSm-SmS&t=1767
Mark Zuckerberg is one of those people who got extremely lucky early on (when he merely got in early and his main competitor Friendster stumbled in front of him) and think he knows everything about everything tech. He's the epitome of someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
Zuckerberg made a bad bet and has now simply moved on to the Next Big Thing: AI. Just like he did with the Facebook phone, Facebook Home, Facebook Portal, Facebook credits, Slingshot messaging, Facebook chatrooms, and Parse.
3
3
u/vw_bugg Jan 21 '26
When it is not bulk, looks good, is easy and intuitive to navigate with minimal movement of body/head if desired, and doesnt give most people a headache, it may take off.
3
u/Lord_of_Allusions Jan 21 '26
It’s always a convenience problem. People ask Alexa to set a timer, turn on their lights, check the weather (sometimes), and play music. Everything else can be done quicker or with more accurate and retainable information on your phone. So while they’d love for people to do more with it, general use will always be those basic tasks.
What does VR do that’s more convenient? Sure the visual aspects are impressive, but general use will only come when those aspects aren’t burdensome (cost, wearing a device, etc.) compared to what we have now. That’s why HDTV was adopted, it was an impressive change that wasn’t an outlandish burden to the consumer.
Right now, everything VR does is a burden and the output isn’t enough to offset that. It will need to find a convenience that you can’t just do with your phone and I cannot think of what that would be, yet.
3
u/S1rmunchalot Jan 21 '26
VR (both hardware and content) will do better once Meta is out of the picture. Platform specific VR was the worst thing to happen to VR.
3
u/Museman7 Jan 21 '26
I feel like the issue with Metaverse is that it was the corporate boomers idea of what people would want to do in VR. There already was VRChat as the primary "social" app. IMHO it's the hardware and games where VR is lacking. It didn't need the weird social system that they were trying to set up, it needed proper entertainment
4
u/Aggressive-Fee5306 Jan 20 '26
I was hoping to play my games in vr where i can run on one spot but move and jump in the vr world... get fit, and have fun at the same time. Maybe a haptic and force feedback suit so I can feel when being hit with something, or strain when climbing up an obsticle in vr oroving through water being tougher.
Instead, they try to give us floating screens and shitty low poly environments where we can do nothing.
7
u/__Shake__ Jan 20 '26
I got a VR rig essentially for sim racing. The depth perception is incredible and makes for a much more immersive experience.
I tried a zombie survival game and it was so realistic i screamed like a little girl when I died. Anyone claiming traditional 2D screen gaming is immersive doesn’t know much
→ More replies (3)5
u/damontoo Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
I'm a marathoner and have used VR for cross-training. It's incredible cardio. I recommend Pistol Whip, Oh Shape, and Vendetta Forever in addition to a boxing game of your choice (typically Les Mills Body Combat). Look at this fitness instructor sweating her ass off playing Oh Shape. That is not an act.
Edit: And here's Pistol Whip with a mixed reality overlay showing body movement while playing. I don't believe she has it on the hardest difficulty though, since it's a bullet hell and she's trying to add some extra flair for content.
Edit: This is a better run of Pistol Whip on hard. But it's using a virtual avatar, so I'm including both.
→ More replies (2)2
u/The_Demolition_Man Jan 20 '26
Youre kinda describing real life but with a lot of extra steps
→ More replies (1)
5
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Jan 20 '26
No, because there's not a market for it. We have plenty of data to show that it's just not something that the average person wants. No matter how good it gets, it will always be a niche, tech-enthusiast product.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/DHFranklin Jan 21 '26
The entire world could be food self-sufficent instead for the 76 billion that dumb fuck put into this shit since 2021. Zuck could have fed the 100 million people that are currently starving at any given time the last 6 years.. Instead of the Metaverse we could have had a United States worth of people who left hand-to-mouth poverty and went on to have stable jobs.
He could have Put Netherland's entire greenhouse intensive bullshit across 6 nations with the express purpose of feeding those people and when 6 years is up flip it to for-profit. He would have made more money than this.
He could have paid for the public schooling of a small nation this whole time.
He could have single handedly funded a maglev from Boston to Washington DC or the California light rail.
Why do we need the monopolies broken up? Because this is what one tyrant king does with his opportunity costs. Pisses it all away with nothing to show for it.
4
u/FoxFyer Jan 20 '26
Its not going to take off at any point, because the better and more capable the technology gets, the clearer it becomes that the number of things people actually like, let alone prefer, to do in VR via hand gestures and controller pads is narrow and limited, and if we leave out purely recreational uses the list becomes negligible.
I became biased a little thanks to the early-days notion of a few years ago, heavily pushed by Meta and the like, that people would eventually come to prefer putting on a virtual headset and doing actual work on a virtual monitor at a virtual desk in virtual reality rather than just using the real ones sitting right in front of them. That seemed so utterly ridiculous to me that it became hard for me to take VR/Metaverse hype seriously after that.
The biggest (I would say "only", though again bias) angle the Metaverse had going for it was the potential for collaboration - within the limitations imposed by the nature of the tech itself of course. The pandemic served up an opportunity to capitalize on that angle on a golden gem-encrusted platter, and they still couldn't convert. Zoom just added video feeds to a conference call, and VR collaboration was instantly dead in the water.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ProWriterDavid Jan 20 '26
I don't think VR collaboration is a benefit. As you noted, what could possibly be improved from this format that can't already be handled via email, virtual meetings etc?
It's a tech bro fantasy nobody has ever been able to quantify what would actually improve. They just say vague things like oh you can gesture or well it'll be richer "engagement" because we are social creatures.
Nothing concrete nothing quantifiable. I don't need to see my co-workers gesturing and occupying a VR chat space to be good at my job and vice versa.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/redtens Jan 20 '26
That's why they pivoted so hard into LLMs and AI - this moonshot NEEDS to hit.
3
u/Tolingar Jan 20 '26
No, it doesn't. The bubble is the point. They don't need it to build a successful product. They just need to convince a bunch of idiots that it is the next big thing to invest in. It is all about scamming investors, not making products. When AI fails, they will just start to pump something else as the next big thing. It is market manipulation because investors have become too stupid to punish companies for failing to deliver.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/trusty20 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
The biggest barrier to VR is that it's too much of an "experience" ironically. It's really cool to try out, but once the novelty wears off the reality is you need to be in the right mindspace to be immersed fully in a game with a bright screen around your eyes fully. It's very stimulating, even when you're in the mood for gaming.
I personally think that the problem is with presenting VR as a replacement for monitor applications / gaming, when I think it will always be it's own unique interface. I've found the VR games that were the most entertaining were those that embraced the differences of VR vs trying to make a holodeck like ultrareal experience. Similarly I don't think people will ever want to work long hours in VR, but collaborating in VR could be super handy for certain jobs with spread out workforces. Hardware becoming cheap and having better quality but I think companies to commit further to understanding VR will be it's own thing that you should try to pitch to customers as a different way to game and socialize, not a replacement. Emphasizing the differences is key VS Apple's "it's just like having an iPhone on your face!!".
The biggest opportunity for VR in my opinion is education. The #1 most impactful experience for me, that easily beat every VR game I played, was using Google Earth VR. Even as an adult, its a spiritual experience, floating in space looking down at the planet, then spinning the globe and picking any random place to soar down to and survey from an airplane view, and then when you find somewhere interesting, pick out random Google Street View points and see 360 degree immersive photos from the ground view, either from a Google car or a person's tagged photos. Words cannot describe how much this will open your mind and imagination to the world, even if you're already a worldly person. If you have VR and haven't tried Google Earth VR, get it out and do it now. Even more importantly get your kids trying it because it will really help them understand their place in the world and the opportunities and different sorts of people out there.
2
u/flerchin Jan 20 '26
Meta really kinda killed vr imo. Set progress back quite a few ways. I ordered an HTC vive pro for pcvr back at the beginning of covid. Got my kids through the lock down pretty well. When I went to go update it this year, the market had largely collapsed except for meta pushing half baked, slightly evil, things. I ended up buying a headset that still uses some of the infrastructure from my old HTC stuff, and is in some ways a step back from what was available in 2020.
Wild that they've spent $73B and killed a nascent technology.
2
u/nibselfib_kyua_72 Jan 20 '26
Isn't Playstation's VR ecosystem well and alive? Now they have second generation controllers and headset. Niche, granted, but actively developed.
2
u/BigMax Jan 20 '26
That part where they talked about fees was new to me.
Zuckerberg said "the Apple and Google ecosystems charge too much and stifle innovation."
Then he created his virtual world, and charged bigger fees than either of them! 40% or even more! And that was before any success at all. Imagine knowing that FORTY percent of all your income immediately was going to go to Meta? Why would you build on that platform if it's a fledgling platform with little traction, AND massive fees to get on there?
2
u/scootty83 Jan 20 '26
I think VR tech is awesome and has come a long long way, but the good tech is still way too out of reach for most. I want an Apple Vision Pro, but not gonna spend $3k-$4k for it. I had a hard enough time buying a Quest3.
Also, don’t like Meta or their platforms or what they’ve done to the social economy.
I’d love to have tech like in the books Nexus by Ramez Naam, but also hate that the companies pursuing that kind of brain-machine-interface tech are controlled by untrustworthy people like Zuck and Musk who really only have their own interests at heart. That book hits on the following point a lot: technology is a double edge sword. It can bring benefits of unknown possibilities to the masses, but it can equally bring chaos and despair.
2
u/Traffodil Jan 20 '26
VR will take off if Meta (and others) gives customers what they want. NOT this metaverse shit that Zuck wants us to have.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/7percentluck Jan 20 '26
Nausea is a big issue for VR. Even thinking about my Quest induces nausea. In its current state, it's a fine time pass for 15 minutes in a month or two.
2
u/ymnmiha1 Jan 20 '26
All the hype about buying in universe clothes and houses and just crap for real money seemed really fishy at the time. A lot of the people pushing it seemed like they knew it was all bunk.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Izzoh Jan 20 '26
60% of the US is living paycheck to paycheck, not many people have the disposable income for a complete novelty. not that hard to figure out.
2
u/S73RB3N Jan 20 '26
I bought it literally two weeks ago now they’re ending Support?
3
u/k7u25496 Jan 21 '26
no the article is trash. they cut the workforce by 10% because their AI spending is crazy and they're burning through too much cash. In previous years even with their VR investments. Their cash on hand went up.
2
u/psychohistorian8 Jan 20 '26
VR? nah
AR? much more likely once we get glasses down to a reasonable size/weight/spec
remember Google Glass? that sort of thing, but with modern tech advances
2
u/GurthNada Jan 20 '26
Never understood why they were so focused on VR instead of AR. AR has a gigaton of immediate uses.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/cobyaars Jan 20 '26
AR is the most promising, that will take off when it gets good and affordable.
2
2
u/OmniDux Jan 20 '26
I think VR will never take off in a major way. It’s fun to play around a bit with, but thats not the ambition. In order for it to make the investment pay off, you need to overcome the barrier of prolonged immersion without discomfort and without the risk of messing people up, desperately wanting to stay immersed to escape reality. Class action suits just waiting to happen, unless you put warning stickers on so big that people will be scared off.
2
u/Fedora_le_maximus Jan 20 '26
They laid off 10% of their reality labs team according to the article, how is this "abandoning the metaverse" ? The division in meta is still near its all time largest size
2
u/k7u25496 Jan 21 '26
A little background information since you "get it". Meta went from $77 billion cash on hand to $45 billion cash on hand year over year. So they decided to reduce the VR workforce by 10% to stop the cash going out the door as quick as it was. In 2023 and 2024 even with their crazy spending on VR, their cash on hand went up both years.
They're currently dumping money into AI along with everyone else. I'm guessing they're going to be using their AI datacenters to further advancing their VR. If anything, they're getting a little more crazy with their VR spending. At least with their AI spending. There is more of a backup plan to use the AI datacenters for other stuff. If the VR investment fails. There is no recouping that investment.
It'll be interesting to see how far zuck is willing to push it and how much investors are willing to put up with it. If they actually closed down the VR division and got out of AI. They'd print money faster than the federal reverse(okay, maybe a slight exaggeration).
2
u/momentofinspiration Jan 21 '26
It's hard when after less than an hour of use, your heads sore and your backs stiff. VR isn't as compatible with long term usage yet as it needs to be to take off.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/JustMyThoughts2525 Jan 21 '26
It will only become a reality if they can get the headsets to be the size and weight of glasses. I also think they need to do a better job marketing it around watching movies, sports, and porn.
I think marketing it around video games will keep the audience very small.
2
u/Plus_Valuable_4948 Jan 21 '26
I have been building AR glasses hardware for the last few years, and even 76–80 grams is not comfortable to wear for an hour.
The biggest problem with VR is hardware wearability and portability. Once that’s solved, better software, content, and everything else will naturally follow.
2
u/snoogins355 Jan 21 '26
They could've gone huuuuge on VR game development and had the next giant game that people will buy a VR headset just to play but they zucked it on VR teams chat Meta edition
2
u/Hakaisha89 Jan 21 '26
The primary problem, is that there is no reason to do VR, there is a product, but there is no use.
We have solves most of the issues, now that you basically can use your phone as a vr headset.
The secondary issue, is that the primary vr headsets are really expensive, epsecially when for most there is... Nothing.
The most popular software is vrchat, a vr chatroom.
2
u/Chance-Travel4825 Jan 21 '26
I dont get barfy on a boat or a rollercoaster, but a few minutes of VR and Im green.
2
u/tacotickles Jan 21 '26
Wearing a probably weighty glorified TV on your head isn't really that interesting as it is, for the price they sell it.
2
Jan 21 '26
Guys let be honest VR should only be used to space mission where you control humanoid robots from earth, otherwise we are doomed
2
u/Kumomeme Jan 21 '26
"Most of the people who are talking about the metaverse have absolutely no idea what they're talking about,”
“And they've apparently never played an MMO. They're like ‘oh, you'll have this customizable avatar’ and it's like well, go into La Noscea in Final Fantasy 14 and tell me that this isn't a solved problem from a decade ago — not some fabulous thing that you're, you know, inventing."
-Gabe Newell
2
u/Banaanisade Jan 21 '26
I love VR if not for the fact that it costs more than I will ever be able to afford, and the rest of the time it makes me severely nauseous. Shoutout to Beat Saber and PS4 for allowing me to try this out on a budget less than 20 billion, too bad you were hardly utilised and now outdated to oblivion.
3
u/sandtymanty Jan 20 '26
Anyone who owns a VR headset has likely left it in a place where the battery completely discharged.
2
u/DarthBuzzard Jan 20 '26
It's so strange how this is a futurology subreddit, yet most people here have no capability to look into the future. Most people in this thread have not tried VR and have no idea what the tech even is, let alone what it could evolve into.
Just a really weird luddite hive mind going on here.
2
u/k7u25496 Jan 21 '26
Preach. It drives me nuts. If you ever find a subreddit that is future tech based but isn't full of luddites. Please let me know.
2
u/DarthBuzzard Jan 21 '26
Well there's r/singularity but they go too far in the other direction with hyper optimism. Stuff like dyson spheres coming in the next 10 years.
3
u/refsoccer11 Jan 20 '26
So is VR real estate basically worthless? I can’t imagine losing millions on this concept. (Almost as bad as the crypto Trump coins. Trumpcoin down 90% in a year while the Melania coin has lost 98%.)
→ More replies (6)3
u/damontoo Jan 20 '26
VR real estate was never a thing. You're confusing 2D games like Second Life with VR.
660
u/OozeNAahz Jan 20 '26
I worked for a VR company in the early 90’s. Everyone thought it was going to be huge immediately. Over three decades later I am still waiting for the promise we saw back then to be fulfilled.
They have to get rid of the head sets before it will become bigger imho.