> That's another sign to me that VR is once again not going anywhere
That's not Carmack's opinion. To quote from his post:
"Despite all the complaints I have about our software, millions of people are still getting value out of it. We have a good product. It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place."
"the fight is still winnable! VR can bring value to most of the people in the world"
The main problem with VR in my opinion is a lack of software. Most of the games produced have been either toys that are little more than a tech demo, or ports of other games not designed around VR. There haven't been many serious attempts to harness VR for non-game playing purposes.
I think the future is still bright for VR. We're currently in a bit of a local hype-cycle trough, but the tech is only going to improve.
When people say one thing with their words and another with their actions, I tend to believe the actions. And "we made cool hardware that doesn't have much practical use" is not the most ringing of endorsements.
Also suspicious to me is the way that Meta still isn't releasing actual use statistics. They're happy to release DAU numbers for Facebook. Where are the equivalent numbers for Oculus? What Carmack says is consistent with my suspicion that a lot of people bought the Quest to try it but don't use it regularly. Which would explain why they keep those numbers very quiet.
The main problem with VR is that it is a gimmick that people don't want to use as their main medium of interaction whether with games or job communication.
I see you're getting downvoted, but that's my suspicion as well. Since the 1850s, stereoscopic 3D has had many waves of short-term popularity but has produced no lasting impact. From the Brewster Stereoscope to the Viewmaster to multiple tries at 3D movies and TV, to 30 years of "VR will break out once we improve the tech", each time people get very excited about the novelty and think it will change the world. And each time it doesn't.
The simple answer here is that people's brain hardware is already quite good at turning flat 2D representations into 3D mental experiences, so stereoscopy doesn't add much. Making it, as you say, a gimmick. The historically cyclical interest in the gimmick suggests that it's mainly appealing as a novelty.
That's not Carmack's opinion. To quote from his post:
"Despite all the complaints I have about our software, millions of people are still getting value out of it. We have a good product. It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place."
"the fight is still winnable! VR can bring value to most of the people in the world"
The main problem with VR in my opinion is a lack of software. Most of the games produced have been either toys that are little more than a tech demo, or ports of other games not designed around VR. There haven't been many serious attempts to harness VR for non-game playing purposes.
I think the future is still bright for VR. We're currently in a bit of a local hype-cycle trough, but the tech is only going to improve.