Technology

will never be widely accepted by the majority of the populatioj because it just isn’t what the vast majority of people want. They want communication methods that compliment their real world lives

I don't think that's strictly true, but I do think it would require their real world lives to get shockingly worse to increase the appeal of living in a "better" world.

This is usually how you see these kind of things presented in fiction: everyone uses a "metaverse", but it requires a full on completely society destroying dystopia to also exist to make it sufficiently appealing.

I'd put money on the next round of VR worlds getting a lot more buy-in since you've got a generation of kids growing up that are already living mostly online, and a species that seems hell-bent on diving in to a nice authoritarian dystopia, so uh, the next 20 years will probably be real interesting,

A big problem with virtual worlds is that it doesn’t really take that long to get to the “end.” The end of the landscape, the end of the mechanics, the end of the economy, whatever. Then you’re stuck waiting for DLC, and that runs out in short order, too.

In reality, even if you stay in one place your whole life, you know there’s more to see; or are the wealthiest person in the world, there’s still more.

I think what we will get out of all this virtual reality research is good augmented reality devices because being able to look at something and pull up information on that thing or instructions on how to use it, etc. would be damn useful. I think I've heard of companies using AR and VR for training purposes, like how to work machines in a factory, etc. before you actually start using them.

I think you're right about affordability.

There's a subset of the population who will pursue VR for gaming et cetera, but it's a limited subset. While the same hardware or tech might be able to be used for casual AR / VR helpful type things like meetings or informational things those applications just aren't beneficial enough to make it worth the cost of the hardware.

If there was more content, more useful applications, and the cost was negligible, then sure it will take off.

In my 20s I would've been interested in VR for gaming and would've been excited about the potential applications of AR. Now in my 40s it's clear that tech doesn't bring me joy, and I'd like to diminish it's role in my life. As in, I want tech to improve my well being and quality of life rather than consume my time and limit my experience of life.

20 years from now, I can imagine myself as a reluctant late-adopter of AR. I just absolutely will not tolerate ads in this regard. I'd rather forage for twigs and berries in the wilderness than allow adverts to be injected into my experience of realiity.

Gaming is an absolutely massive economic sector, driven by the escapism of virtual worlds. The functional kernel of the metaverse is a universal game lobby, a place for people to congregate while they navigate between the games they play together.

Alyx has ruined almost every other VR game for me purely from how polished of an experience it is. Every other game that isn't an arcade, driving/racing sim or a fitness game just feels clunky to me.

Yes, but it is also very different. I have a VR headset and use it every now and then. But compared to "normal" gaming it is quite different.

When playing a non-VR game you can just minimize the game and check stuff between rounds/matches/when you pause/etc. With VR I feel like you have to be there all the time, and the headsets are still heavy so you can't play as long. Not to mention you are usually standing.

I like VR and think it will be good eventually, but it is not there yet. It is 100% playable as it is, but the overall tech is not quite there yet.

I remember a lot of fanboys who just uncritically believe whatever the latest hype is. The problem for the metaverse is that those people move on quickly and are probaly all talking about "AI" nowadays

They're pricey, but you can find prescription inserts for vr headsets.