Comment by bhouston

5 days ago

> Interesting, cutting way back in the product they renamed the whole company for.

It was clearly the wrong bet. He pumped something like $100B into the endeavour (Meta Quest / VR / Horizons) and it is just slowly dying as we speak. He has to give up on it, although I am sure it will be called a "pivot" into AR glasses.

> He pumped something like $100B into the endeavour (Meta Quest / VR / Horizons) and it is just slowly dying as we speak.

Literally never met anyone who used or liked the Horizon thing, VRChat in comparison is more popular and doesn't feel like a soulless corporate husk: they also have quite the variety of worlds, from party games, to someone building a whole jet/chopper flight combat simcade world; ofc all of them are a bit jank, but lots of cool stuff and very expressive avatars.

Meta Quest, on the other hand, seems like a really good piece of tech - I still have my Quest 2 (because I'm broke as hell), but I enjoyed even that one, albeit maybe with a slightly more comfy head strap than the default one and the Virtual Desktop app cause their Link app doesn't support Intel Arc GPUs. The tracking is good, the experience of all sorts of stuff in VR is nice, games like H3VR or VTOL VR are great, as is Into The Radius VR! At the same time, I can see why it never saw super widespread adoption - tricky to develop for and also a somewhat limited audience.

Also the productivity situation just isn't there, closest I got to a good productivity setup (out of curiosity) was the Immersed app before they messed it all up by removing support for physical monitors - I could have my 4 physical monitors in VR surrounded by whatever I want and some virtual monitors and just lock in, it was kind of zen despite the technical limitations. It seems like people got promising tech in place... and then never really wrote good software to take advantage of it. Even Virtual Desktop has artificially enforced monitor limits in VR.

I hope VR tech continues to progress (especially lightweight headsets) no matter what happens to Meta.

Yeah, it was a bizarre decision. There isn't a clear ROI on games and that's what Horizon Worlds has been the whole time. There's no equation that says a 100M game automatically makes 100x more than a 1M game on average. If anything the equation is sub-linear. 100B just doesn't seem like the right size for a game investment.

  • It's supposed to be a Roblox competitor, which does print money, though probably not to the extent of how much they invested.

    The problems are 2 fold:

    People/kids don't want to put on a VR headset to play Roblox. I guess they're conceding this point by pivoting to mobile.

    Meta is the opposite of cool. Real name requirements, only humanoid avatars, super corpo branding, etc really seriously hold them back from competing with VRChat or Roblox. This one is terminal it'll never be fixable as long as Meta is at the helm.

    • Even Roblox doesn’t print money if you look into that business. They print engagement but are still fighting tooth and nail to make a dime on it.

      I can see Meta wanting the engagement though.

      1 reply →

  • 100B wasn't spent on a game. The RL org is much larger than Horizon Worlds, or even VR

It's not slowly dying, it was dead on arrival and never had any real traction

There are some really good ar glasses for a couple of hundred dollars, I think they are going to end up really cheap and not the 100 billion investment that facebook needs.

  • Tbf I don't think they ever intended to make back their investments via the goggles. As near as I can tell the thought process was basically: "Real estate + fashion + live entertainment + art + etc is X quadrillion dollars. We could make The Virtual World and capture all that value. It would be irrational not to invest $100B!" Basically Pascal's Investment.