Meta continues its reign as the XR industry’s dominant player, with its most recent moves signaling a shift into a new era for the company—and thus the industry at large. This year saw the introduction of the Meta Orion AR glasses prototype and the Quest 3S headset—two pieces of hardware that are not only crucial to Meta’s future but will be pivotal in shaping the industry’s direction as a whole.

Meta Orion AR Glasses Are a Flag in the Ground

Image courtesy Meta
The News

One of Meta’s most significant announcements this year was the unveiling of the Meta Orion AR glasses prototype. Meta has long been signaling its ambitions in the AR space, and the Meta Orion prototype represents a major step toward that vision. With a compact form-factor and an impressive 70-degree field of view, Meta is aiming to push the boundaries of what AR hardware can achieve.

Why It Matters

Meta’s Orion AR glasses stand as a benchmark for the state-of-the-art in AR glasses today. Unlike similarly sized AR devices—which suffer from a narrow field-of-view that make content appear constrained—Meta Orion’s 70-degree FoV is just scraping the boundary of ‘wide enough to be useful’. Achieving a compact form-factor and a wide field-of-view in the same package is crucial for making AR feel more seamless and practical in daily use.

It will be years yet before Meta ships something like Orion, but it’s an intentional ‘flag in the ground’ moment for the company.

Quest 3S Speeds the Transition Away from Quest 2

Image courtesy Meta
The News

Meta launched Quest 3S, a new addition to the Quest lineup that really should have launched alongside Quest 3 in the first place. Positioned as a more budget-friendly alternative to the flagship Quest 3, the Quest 3S comes with a lower price point but still offers significant improvements in performance and mixed reality capabilities compared to older devices like the Quest 2.

Why It Matters

In its marketing, Meta has been hyping mixed reality for years at this point. But the large population of Quest 2 headsets (which really aren’t great for MR) have undercut the company’s push into MR.

The Quest 3S is finally a new headset from Meta that’s comparable to what Quest 2 was in terms of affordability, while including reasonably good MR capabilities too.

SEE ALSO
Meta Reveals 'Orion' Prototype AR Glasses with Impressive Field-of-view and Wireless Compute Unit

With the Quest 2 becoming increasingly outdated, users and developers alike have been waiting for hardware that can keep up with more demanding VR experiences. The Quest 3S hits the sweet spot for many casual users, offering a balance between affordability and performance.

And finally Meta has a flagship game for its Quest 3 & Quest 3S hardware. Batman: Arkham Shadow (which is exclusive to these newer headsets), is just the thing to get VR gamers that are hanging on to Quest 2 to make the leap to newer hardware.

Ironically, the flagship game for these new “mixed reality” headsets (as Meta now usually refers to them) is a pure VR game. Maybe with the next headset launch the company can properly time a flagship MR app with its launch.

More Immersive and Useful Mixed Reality Apps

Demeo Mixed Reality mode | Image courtesy Meta
The News

This year Meta revealed that it will now grant developers access to camera data for creating mixed reality (MR) content. This change opens up new possibilities for how MR experiences are built and how users can interact with their environments through these experiences.

Why It Matters

For years Meta has held out on giving developers direct access to the headset’s cameras. That made it harder for developers to build interesting MR applications that properly integrate and interact with the world around the user.

In addition to Quest 3S helping to grow the population of Quest headsets with decent MR capabilities, this change also makes building MR applications a more attractive proposition for developers.

Ostensibly Meta had originally blocked direct camera access to preserve user privacy and prevent potential abuse by bad actors. Reversing that decision is risky; another privacy scandal is the last thing Meta wants its headsets to be known for.

New Tools for Developers to Bring ‘Spatial Computing’ to Quest

Image courtesy Meta
The News

This year Meta also introduced new tools to make it easier for developers to port both flat-screen and spatial computing applications to Quest devices. These tools are designed to streamline the development process, enabling developers to create more immersive XR content without requiring a steep learning curve.

Why It Matters

Meta’s headsets are great for gaming, but it wants them to be great at ‘spatial computing’ too. But getting developers to bring traditional apps to its platform has been a major hurdle for the company.

One of the biggest challenges traditional app developers face is moving from a flat screen modality to something that inherently exists in 3D. This generally requires a completely different set of tools that’s much more in the realm of game development than app development.

Meta’s new tools aim to simplify this process, allowing developers who are familiar with building flat-screen applications to bring their apps to the Horizon platform with minimal friction. This opens up the Quest platform to a wider range of applications, from 2D games and productivity tools to more immersive spatial experiences.

But Meta still faces an uphill battle with getting a critical mass of everyday apps onto its headset. The company has openly said it would love to bring the Play store (and all of its apps) to the headset, but it seems Google isn’t down to play ball. That’s likely because it’s busy working on its own XR strategy and doesn’t want to give Meta an upper hand.

New Headsets on the Horizon

Image courtesy Meta
The News

In a surprising move this year, Meta announced that it was planning to open up the Horizon OS to select partners who will make their own headsets that run the operating system.

Why it Matters

While Meta has made solid general-purpose headsets, the company believes the time is right for more specialized options. But rather than build those options itself, the company is enlisting help from companies that are already familiar with building hardware for someone else’s software.

While this could bring a wider range of headsets to market which retain access to Meta’s leading platform of content, the move shares a striking resemblance to Microsoft’s ill-fated VR play which enlisted major computer OEMs to build a round of VR headsets and then quickly lose interest.

SEE ALSO
‘NFL PRO ERA’ Re-launches as Live Service Game on Quest, Releases Linebacker DLC

Because Meta owns the Horizon platform, and subsidizes the cost of its own headsets, it’s difficult to understand how announced partners like Asus and Lenovo could hope to build a headset that’s meaningfully better than what Meta is already offering and compete with Meta on price. This has clearly been a struggle for HTC Vive which doesn’t have the money to burn to subsidize its hardware like Meta.

Meta may have already run into trouble with its announced partner LG, which was set to collaborate with Meta on a Horizon OS headset, but reportedly had second thoughts just weeks later.

– – — – –

Meta’s ability to burn billions in its pursuit of owning the XR space (or the “next computing platform” as Zuckerberg often calls it) means the company is the one primarily steering the ship. The moves Meta made this year are the beginning of a new era for the company (while most of the industry remains in tow).

While Apple’s entry into the space has already had notable influence on Meta’s XR trajectory, it won’t be until both companies are competing in the same price-class (and for the same users) that Meta will have to truly fight to maintain control of XR’s near-term future.

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."
  • Christian Schildwaechter

    TL;DR: VR has a history of overhyping specific developments into the thing that finally turns it mainstream; Orion isn't anywhere near product state, Quest 3S a nice update that won't move the masses anymore than MR will, the hardware is too weak for either spatial computing or AR, and the main effect of Horizon OS will be availability on the Chinese market. That's not really "a new era", more business as usual, slowly creeping forward.

    I remember for literally years complaining that whenever Road to VR published an article about VR usage growth, it included a graph with a projected curve indicating exponential growth in the near future, shifted further into the future with every new article. Which was mostly bad statistics, as there was a one time event (release of HL:A) that doubled user numbers. But to derive trends, you have to first remove non-repeating extreme values, as otherwise you get trends where none exist due to single values seriously distorting the average.

    It's very important to not blindly extrapolate everything that looks like good news into significant growth or "a new era". Yes, some things look better than before, but frankly you have to be very, very optimistic to believe that anything fundamental has just changed. Regarding the "positive signs" mentioned in the article:

    1) Orion will be turned into a consumer product by 2030 at "between phone and laptop" prices. So it will probably cost as much as a Quest Pro before the price drop. Meta has problems selling Quest 3 for USD 500, which is the whole reasons Quest 3S exists. Orion will take more than a decade to make any impact.

    2) Quest 3S is a Quest 2 with a faster SoC and color passthrough. It is a decent successor for VR gaming with excellent value, but Quest 2 was an excellent value in 2020 and didn't exactly take the world by storm. Due to the large Quest 2 install base, most games will target it for years, so there is no reason to believe that Quest 3S will be significantly better received in general than its predecessor.

    3) One reason for Quest 3S not offering a huge technological improvement that could draw new crowds is that Mixed Reality is still mostly a comfort feature, an image of the environment pasted into the background with barely any interaction. That's only partly due to the restricted access to the cameras. The hardware also isn't fast enough to turn Quest 3/3S into a capable AR HMD. Even with camera access developers will either have to rely on remote data centers for image processing like Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses, or limit compute heavy recognition to mostly predefined items or something like QR markers.

    The latter is why I wanted camera access for years, as it allows for a few very specific use cases, though not something with appeal to many users. But the main reason for MR's limited impact is simply that it is very hard to design truly immersive games that integrate your living room in a useful way.

    4) Spatial Computing is an important development for XR, but won't win a lot of users on Quest 3/3S because the per degree resolution/PPD is still nowhere near that of a 1080p monitor, nor do the passthrough cameras provide a clear enough image. I learned programming on a computer with a 320*200 display, so of course it's technically possible to use Quest for spatial computing right now. But for people to seriously consider a Quest for productivity work, both screen and camera resolution will first have to increase by at least 50% in each direction.

    5) Horizon OS headsets mostly seem a reaction to the threat of AndroidXR headsets announced by Samsung etc., which in turn are a reaction to AVP. Not unexpectedly AVP targeting devs and first movers at USD 3500 isn't selling like hot cake despite favorable reviews, and the platform will only get interesting to more users with significantly cheaper future models. Seeing this apparently cooled down the need for companies to quickly throw their own XR HMDs onto the market, and in turn made Horizon OS less attractive for those now desperately looking to release "Me too" products.

    Meta offering Quest at production cost made selling 3rd party HMDs always barely viable, restricting them to the higher end. Asus has a history of high end gaming laptops, so it made some sense to pick Horizon OS, but with Meta struggling to sell HMDs for more than USD 300, there may not be much of a market there in the first place.

    Lenovo was initially aiming for productivity use closer to what Samsung announced with prices above Quest Pro, and otherwise may be mostly interested because it is a Chinese company. AndroidXR is bound to Google Play Services, which aren't available in China, while as a Horizon OS licensee they could release an XR HMD with their own backend services. Meta, who's services also aren't available in China, made a similar deal with Xiaomi for the Oculus Go, and wanted to bring Quest to the Chinese market with local gaming giant Tencent. And currently I see not a lot of other interest in Horizon OS besides this particular use case.

    • VR5

      I remember for literally years complaining that whenever Road to VR published an article about VR usage growth, it included a graph with a projected curve indicating exponential growth in the near future

      Receipts please. Not sure what you're even talking about, Steam survey articles? They don't have projected curves. Amazing strawman. I challenge you to link to even one RtVR article that supports your claim.

      As for Orion being years in the future, at the beginning of the 80ies home/personal computers were a tiny niche. At the end of the 90ies, PCs grew into a mainstream platform of billions. And Smartphones topped even that. So if you compare 80ies computer to today's smartphones, you might understand why Meta is investing in XR glasses and headsets, because as the tech gets better so will the userbase increase.

      Apple was on the verge of going bankrupt in the 90ies. Their position in today's market is entirely thanks to the iPhone. AR glasses are the most likely successor to smartphones, Meta being on track to create the AR glasses iPhone is what makes their XR business worth it.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Receipts please. Not sure what you're even talking about, Steam survey articles? They don't have projected curves. Amazing strawman. I challenge you to link to even one RtVR article that supports your claim.

        www_roadtovr_com/steam-survey-vr-monthly-active-user-2-million-milestone/#comment-5228095134

        Explanation with detailed reasoning in the thread, graphs in the article. The projected curves were added to the Steam survey data by Road To VR.

        • VR5

          That seems to be the only one with a projected curve though. And the exponential growth, when indicated, was evident in the confirmed data. So your claim (whenever -> implying, each time) is still wrong.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I just edited my comment, adding a second article from a year later.

          • VR5

            I saw that one, after confirming we're talking about Steam surveys, I googled them myself. As I already pointed out, it doesn't have a projection.

            You can say the article coinciding with HL:A was overzealous, but Ben did call the projection naive in the article himself, even before your criticism.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            The 2021 comment wasn't the first time I pointed out the inappropriate trend line, I started doing that even before HL:A released. Quoting myself from that comment, picked because it included a detailed explanation:

            That is not naïve, it is wrong.

            It wasn't necessarily "lying with statistics", but at least "blissfully ignoring that all our previous projections were overly optimistic, therefore still including what is obviously false instead of first questioning our approach."

            And I never claimed that Valve added any projections to their Steam survey data, which is, as the name suggests, survey data showing past usage. My

            VR has a history of overhyping specific developments into the thing that finally turns it mainstream


            under an article by Ben was in reference to other articles by Ben that added these projections by (mis-)interpreting the Steam survey data. Though this is in no way specific to Ben, who is certainly more on the side of a non-partisan, balanced view that looks at facts instead of wishful thinking, even if the result is an unpopular view. Whenever I pointed out that the actual data doesn't support the idea of exponential growth, I got lots of responses that I'm obviously an idiot and that VR usage would soon explode due to XYZ. And we still get lots of comments claiming that VR would go mainstream, if only Meta/Sony/Whoever would pay for AAA/use pancakes/increase the FoV/whatever.

          • VR5

            Do you have another link to a second article with a projection? Either way, the ones after it don't have them so "whenever->always" is already not true.

            Some people might have been too optmistic and are indulging in their wishful thinking, but it still is quite likely that XR will grow into the billion people market Zuckerberg is aiming for eventually.

            The requirement for mainstream is much lower though and VR has been mainstream since Quest 2. People know Beat Saber, they know the Quest, it (or other HMDs) frequently pop(s) up in advertising and popular media.

            Meta is increasing their advertising as well, indicating they're more confident in the product they're offering. It's reasonable to assume XR will continue to grow steadily, until the tech is good enough to allow it to "explode". That took almost two decades for home/personal computers.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I already provided two articles, so I'm not sure what you mean by "another link to a second article with a projection." And sure, there most certainly will have been articles about the development of VR that didn't include a graph with an exponential growth curve, and even if there wasn't I wouldn't be able to prove this without linking every single one.

            So assuming there was even one article without it, my "whenever Road to VR published an article about VR usage growth, it included a graph with a projected curve indicating exponential growth in the near future" was a blatant lie, an unfair attempt to smear this publication. Or maybe it was hyperbole, a rhetorical form of exaggeration instead of trying to claim an universal truth without exceptions.

            I actually believe that XR HMDs will largely replace smartphones with billions of users, simply because they can provide much larger "screens" and won't occupy 50% of your hands during use. But I expect that it is going to take a long time, will only be possible with Orion like glasses that won't necessarily allow for VR usage, and that VR or passthrough based HMDs will never go truly mainstream or explode due to both comfort and impairing our natural vision.

            If we take 2016 with Rift CV1/Vive as the launch and graciously assume 15mn active VR users now, "growing steadily" at the same pace would get VR to 1bn active users by the year 2577. If your count starts with Quest 1, the mark will be reached 220 years earlier in 2357. For comparison, DVD players as the fastest growing consumer entertainment product sold 627mn units worldwide during the first year.

            And this doesn't depend on how much money Meta throws at it, nor on how much they believe in their product, if customers aren't buying due to fundamental issues and lack of interest. I actually expect VR to do much better than so far with improved tech and growing use cases, but doubt that Meta ads will significantly boost things. Low retention is a sign that the offer simply isn't good enough even for those that already bought a Quest.

            And I still don't care about what people believe or find inevitable, or very unrealistic ideas about Beat Sabers being known to more than a few percent of the general public even in the US by people living inside the VR bubble, if the actual numbers don't support it. There is no guarantee whatsoever that VR will ever become as popular as PCs, which have been on their way out for years, replaced by smartphones. There is no guarantee that it will one day explode, and if Meta pulled the money plug, it would instead implode.

            A lot of technology fails, and VR not even significantly gaining ground in its stronghold gaming isn't a good sign. Mobile gaming pretty much started with the 2007 iPhone, and by now there are est. 2.8bn mobile gamers worldwide, about every 3rd human on the planet. So it is hard to argue that the lack of interest in Quest is due to still too slow headsets, too simple graphics, to high prices or too primitive games.

            In the end Meta will have burned more than USD 100bn and still not have become a platform owner similar to Apple or Google today, simply because governments are now fed up with their monopolistic behavior shoveling all users, data and money towards themselves, and will consequently force them to open up and become mere infrastructure providers with much less control and much lower fees.

          • guest

            No, XR HMDs will NOT largely replace smartphones with billions of users. Most people will not want a cellphone spamming in their face fulltime. One of the hidden reasons Daydream failed was that people did not like their immersion constantly disrupted by phonecalls and text messages. Developers hated the requirements that their apps pause for interuptions and then try to pick up where they left off. It will be even worse with AI (AKA weaponizing user profile history to jerk them around even more).

          • XRC

            Unsure about your Daydream notification claim, got Daydream and Pixel XL spent alot of time using native apps mainly gaming as well as using YouTubeVR, ChromeVR, Firefox for webVR, Photos, etc.

            Cannot ever recall having a Daydream session interrupted by a phonecall or text notification?

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            That's why I made the distinction between Orion-like see-through XR HMDs/glasses that will replace smartphones and VR/passthrough HMDs that will remain a niche. Smart glasses are more like HUDs, their very purpose is showing notifications and adding information to your environment, not to take over your view. AVP is basically a head worn iPad, already running iPhone apps, so pretty close in concept to what I expect could replace smartphones, but in a large, clunky form.

            AVP can still act as a VR HMD and provide full immersive experience, because it has to rely on passthrough as see-through technology isn't ready yet. It handles interruptions better than Gear VR/Daydream, as you never have to leave the HMD or experience to either answer or ignore them, you can basically fade between the worlds and use all phone apps with hand tracking while wearing the HMD.

            But for both technical and user acceptance reasons I'd expect the popular XR HMDs to mostly drop the option of fully immersive experiences. Their primary function will be pretty similar to how we use phones today. Those that want the fully immersive world will get another HMD for that which they'll use only for certain experiences, while the lighter and simpler XR smart glasses will be worn most of the day to show notifications, allow communications, run productivity apps and provide contextual information, like phones now. And play the occasional casual puzzle game floating in mid air, but not something like Pavlov or Population: One.

          • guest

            So by saying passthrough as see-through technology isn't ready yet, it sounds like its just a stepping-stone by the big tech overlords to eventually put a cellphone on your face with their AI translating all the worlds spam, at which point they will abandon fully immersive capablities because it is not profitable. What a depressing future!

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            TL;DR: The near future is actually pretty bright, as XR see-through HMDs are still very far off, so for the next decade everybody wanting to cash in on that future market will have to experiment with passthrough HMDs, which should lead to significant improvements for those looking for the full immersion too; the remaining problem will be continued disinterest from large gaming franchises due to small VR user numbers, unless something causes a sudden, significant uptick in VR usage among gamers.

            Well, after about a decade of trying, fully immersive HMDs are very far from being profitable, despite having improved a lot. Many of the arguments against earlier VR like high price, annoying cables, nauseating experiences or lack of games have all been overcome, but that still didn't convince a lot of gamers to try it. So there is a real chance that only a small fraction of all the potential users really values the high immersion, while the majority prefers much less involved sitting on a couch with friends, playing games on a large TV only pressing buttons on a controller instead. And given the sheer amount of casual mobile gamers, immersion apparently isn't high on the list of what average gamers are looking for.

            I seriously hope that more people will discover VR with further improvements, but it has gotten so much better over the recent years that I doubt the low usage comes from its early state alone. On the other hand smartphones have proven so useful that they are now a necessity even in places without electricity, So charging stations powered by generators, batteries or solar panels have sprung up as a new business model. There is therefore little doubt that people will also go for advanced forms of smartphones, which XR see-through HMDs could become.

            I seriously doubt that VR headsets will vanish though. There already is enough market movement and benefits to keep going, there has always been a professional VR market since the 90s, and the tech is mature enough to be useful and interesting. It's just unlikely that it will see the adaption many expected in the early days. But with consumer accessible and affordable XR see-though HMDs more than a decade away, we should still see at least 15 years of XR development heavily focused on VR/passthrough headsets, simply because these are the only ones capable enough to experiment with new use cases, even if some of these will later be moved to non-VR XR HMDs.

            Small and light XR headsets will never be able to cover all of the use cases, and 15+ more years of improvements should lead to some freaking cool headsets for those into the full VR experience, which could attract a lot more people. So VR will most certainly stay. Just don't expect CoD, Fortnite or Counterstrike to see ports anytime soon due to the relatively small VR user base. Or something resembling the Oasis from Ready Player One or even Meta's metaverse. But given the state of Horizon World, that's probably a good thing.

          • ViRGiN

            I don't think Daydream death had ANYTHING to do with notifications/phone stuff. It was simply a dead platform but company who constantly does not commit to it's projects. There was nothing to do on it, because nobody developed for it.

          • VR5

            Or maybe it was hyperbole, a rhetorical form of exaggeration instead of trying to claim an universal truth without exceptions.

            Yes, it's fair to say it was hyperbole and in the end closer to the truth than I would have liked. Recency bias on my account. But it still is true that apparently there is only one article with a projection, certainly out of the two you provided, so here is where your exaggeration misses the truth.

            And although Ben was getting too hopeful after HL:A, the short lived exponential growth, that unfortunately wasn't sustained in the end, did occur, so it was fair to point it out. And it does show what a game like HL:A can do for VR gaming; but we need more of that, without gaps. Arkham Shadow followed by three more big titles all during this holiday season could have a similar effect as HL:A did back then.

            We can get exponential growth, we know the tools (native VR sequels to beloved IPs), and Meta (and Sony) are funding those tools.

          • ViRGiN

            And it does show what a game like HL:A can do for VR gaming; but we need more of that,

            What did HLA do for VR? Showcase nice graphics? Because it had zero innovation when it comes to VR-only mechanics. I'm 100% sure, HLA released without Half-Life title and Valve logo would not be getting anything close to HLA praisal.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            But it still is true that apparently there is only one article with a projection, certainly out of the two you provided, so here is where your exaggeration misses the truth.

            Okay, let's settle this with "science":

            Searching for Steam Survey on Road To VR lists 66 articles from 2014-2024 containing both words. Of these, 25 include a graph showing VR user growth over time based on Steam survey data. The 41 articles without the graph mostly discuss things like HMD market share or contain both "Steam" and "Survey" unrelated to each other.

            Of the 25 showing a usage graph,
            – 17 (68%) contain at least one graph with an exponential trend line drawn on top of the surveyed data points,
            – 5 (20%) only show the actual data without trend lines,
            – 3 (12%) include a linear trend line.

            – The first article using the graph is from 2018-12, the last from 2024-05. The first and second article contained a linear line, followed by one indicating exponential growth and two without any line.

            – Every article between 2019-06 and 2022-03 showed a trend line indicating exponential growth with one "no line added" exception in 2020-06 about the aftermath of the HL:A release.

            – Articles after 2022-03 went back to only showing the actual survey data, with the last article from 2024-05 again adding a linear line, this time indicating falling user numbers.

            So in conclusion: Road to VR started with no or linear trend lines, then quickly switched to exponential trend lines for almost three years, and finally went back to either none or linear. They chose this, the given data in no way forced them too.

            One can approximate linear growth with the start of an exponential curve, and vice versa. It is up to the authors to try and pick the correct approximation, and then with every data point added later verify that the chosen approximation still matches the real data. If it doesn't, they have to switch to another type of approximation that more closely matches the real data at any point in time, not just when looking at the current set as they did by always "flattening" their exponential graph, ignoring their previous assumptions. You don't only have to apply some math that seems to fit right now, you actually have to check that it's the correct math every time.

            Below the referenced articles, ordered by most frequently used trend line type, then chronologically, without the leading www_roadtovr_com that needs to be edited manually anyway, to allow for peer review.

            Exponential trend line, 17 articles:
            2019-01-30 /monthly-connected-vr-headsets-on-steam-have-grown-exponentially-analysis/
            2019-06-06 /monthly-connected-vr-headsets-steam-1-million-milestone/
            2020-01-29 /analysis-monthly-connected-vr-headsets-on-steam-record-high/
            2020-02-04 /steam-survey-vr-headset-growth-january-2020/
            2020-04-07 /steam-survey-vr-headset-growth-march-2020/
            2020-05-02 /steam-survey-vr-headset-growth-april-2020-half-life-alyx/
            2020-08-04 /steam-survey-vr-headset-growth-august-2020/
            2021-01-15 /steam-survey-vr-monthly-active-user-2-million-milestone/
            2021-02-03 /steam-survey-quest-2-most-used-headsets-steamvr-record-high/
            2021-03-02 /quest-2-most-used-vr-headset-steam-record-high/
            2021-04-02 /monthly-connected-headsets-steam-3-million-march-2021/
            2021-05-03 /steam-survey-vr-april-2021-quest-2-growth/
            2021-07-21 /steam-survey-vr-headsets-june-2021-sharp-drop/
            2021-08-02 /steam-survey-vr-headsets-on-steam-data-july-2021/
            2021-09-07 /quest-2-loss-steamvr-hardware-software-survey-august-2021/
            2021-10-07 /valve-index-second-most-used-headset-steam-vr-hardware-software-survey-september-2021/
            2022-02-17 /monthly-connected-vr-headsets-steam-survey-january-2022/

            No trend line, 5 articles:
            2019-02-01 /vr-headset-growth-steam-biggest-leap-yet-steam-survey-january-2019/
            2019-05-13 /steam-survey-april-2019-htc-vive-and-windows-vr-gains-oculus-new-headsets/
            2020-06-02 /half-life-alyx-surge-steam-vr-survey/
            2022-03-10 /valve-steam-vr-headset-stats-2021-monthly-active-users/
            2022-09-22 /valve-fix-steam-survey-vr-population/

            Linear trend line, 3:
            2018-12-03 /steam-vr-user-population-usage/
            2019-01-05 /2018-ends-with-a-record-number-of-vr-headsets-on-steam/
            2024-05-03 /theres-now-more-vr-than-mac-players-on-steam-mostly-from-mac-shrinking/

          • VR5

            One can approximate linear growth with the start of an exponential curve, and vice versa. It is up to the authors to try and pick the correct approximation, and then with every data point added later verify that the chosen approximation still matches the real data. If it doesn't, they have to switch to another type of approximation that more closely matches the real data at any point in time, not just when looking at the current set as they did by always "flattening" their exponential graph, ignoring their previous assumptions. You don't only have to apply some math that seems to fit right now, you actually have to check that it's the correct math every time.

            If you put a linear line (like your yellow one in your comment monthly-connected-vr-headsets-steam-survey-january-2022/#comment-5725195044) it will be vastly over all the values before April 2020. It would need to have some values over it for it be an accurate average. So no, for the time frame analysed in those articles with a exponential average line, linear growth would not have been a possible choice.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I offered two trend lines, one before, one after the release of HL:A, which gave VR a huge publicity boost and was reported about in the main press about, not only in VR or gaming specific media. Both linear trend lines fit the data better than an exponential graph. There's no magic here, a lot of things like adjusted prices, new headsets or companies dropping out can change trends, so the idea that all the VR user growth since 2014 has to fit one particular formula is nonsense.

            And the whole discussion is moot, because we know that the last few years growth has actually slowed down. You are trying to come up with more and more bizarre arguments to defend your position, but never deliver the one thing that you'd need for that: actual data supporting your position. Your whole argument is based on hope, not facts.

          • VR5

            You're misconstruing what these articles are actually saying, both this one and the really unrelated Steam survey articles. The point is, there was exponential growth at one time, claiming there was linear growth is simply wrong.

            Insisting it is about foretelling the future when the article never made that claim is a strawman. The articles' observations were sound then and nothing that since happened would change that because it was about past events, already evident facts.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            We can get exponential growth, we know the tools (native VR sequels to beloved IPs), and Meta (and Sony) are funding those tools.

            In theory nothing is preventing exponential growth. That native VR sequels to beloved IPs would lead there is an assumption/wishful thinking for which there is no data supporting it. Meta funded several high profile titles. They don't publish usage numbers, but you can track monthly new reviews for apps on the Horizon store as an indirect indicator for increased engagement.

            Those numbers neither show any type of exponential growth, nor do they support that big IP titles have any lasting impact. In fact it is depressing how fast these titles vanish from the Top 25 that for years has been dominated by simpler titles like Beat Saber, Job Simulator, Golf+, Thrill of the fight for paid, and Gorilla Tag for free apps.

            The actual data indicates that a) there is only limited interest in VR from gamers, b) more than half of all Quest users stop using it after a few months and c) those that continue using it play mostly casual titles with short session durations.

          • VR5

            You yourself stated that the exponential growth seen in the Steam surveys was thanks to HL:A, which is a native VR game sequel to a beloved IP, which hasn’t seen a flat sequel in a long time. One game doesn’t make a pattern, but at least the data does show such a game makes an impact. So it is already wrong to say that there is no data supporting this claim. Of course we need to control for other factors, but I already did that by narrowing it down to criteria that other such releases are missing. Actually Arkham Shadow and Metro: Awakening are the first games that fit those same criteria as HL:A.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            No, I stated that to determine trends, the data first has to be cleared of extreme one-time values, because otherwise you get phantom trends due to the distorting impact of that value on the average. So basically you have to ignore the increase due to HL:A completely, unless you assume that similar releases will appear on a regular basis. I also said that their whole incorrect exponential growth graph would have fallen flat on its face much earlier if it hadn't been saved by the jump caused by HL:A. Basically one statistical error helped cover up another statistical error.

            And we don't need to discuss whether the projection was right. We now have several years of data and the growth has very clearly not been exponential, so the projection was plain wrong. You could approximate the same growth curve by a sine function or a large circle. Just because you can find one way that seemingly describes the curve doesn't make it an appropriate assumption. That's really basic statistics.

            And if you seriously believe that Arkham Shadow might have the same impact as HL:A, the first game in 13 years from a highly revered cult series that caused even basically unsellable WMR headsets to sell out and the price for used VR headsets to explode, then maybe go to ebay and check if the release of Arkham made even a tiny dent into used Quest 3 prices. You are using exactly the wishful thinking based reasoning with always only referring to the great things that will "soon" happen, while blissfully ignoring what has really happened so far, that I was criticizing in my first comment. You can use Arkham Shadow and Metro: Awakening as an argument in a year AFTER they sold millions of new Quest and caused exponential growth. Right now you have to argue for the great impact of beloved IPs with the success of RE4, MoH, Asgard's Wrath 2 or AC Nexus, because their sales numbers are facts, not mere fiction.

          • guest

            It would be very interesting to see the 'actual data' for this you mention. It aligns completely with my observations.

    • Ben Lang

      I appreciate your commentary as always. However this article isn't saying "new era" = "better era". Just taking a moment to take stock of what Meta is up to, and to commentate on how the company is still largely in control of XR's destination, for the time being.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Our idea of a new area may be different, but I really don't see it. My "business as usual" wasn't about better tech, more about Meta's approach. It's still trying stuff and seeing what sticks instead of focus. They forgot about the metaverse, now push MR instead, but lack a concept what to do with it and proper headsets. They still (have to) mostly target gaming generating Christmas sales, and try to patch on other ideas currently not really working. You've written a lot about neglected usability issues on Horizon OS. And nobody understands how 3rd party HMDs are supposed work. They look like another half-baked reaction similar to the Spatial SDK that adds more stuff on top of the pile, without an integrated concept.

        That's why I don't see a change, only the same try-and-error, with no way of telling if by 2026 they forget about MR and everything is spatial AI whatever. This is in stark contrast to Apple launching AVP as neither a VR nor AR HMD, but as a head worn iOS device with seamless eco system integration that's also a great media player, using hardware brute-forced to be sufficient for the task regardless of cost, a very clear vision. I'd be more convinced of a new era at Meta if they dropped half the features and prototypes to focus on one thing.

        • Arno van Wingerde

          Hm… I do not consider this a new era either, more another step in a long evolutionary process. But there are advances: with Q3 and Q3S, for the first time a mass consumer gadget offers MR. The camera access and developer tools may be the first step towards a more coherent drive to move the platform forwards after a rather long stagnation.
          Opening Horizon OS to 3rd parties is a massively underrated step as well: just look at all those startups thinking they can make a VR set but putting a few OLED screen into a piece of plastic… What if they run Horizon OS, have access to the Quest library and Meta’s knowledge of VR instead? Get me one of them light OLED sets with Horizon OS, and uncompressed PC! Steam links for 2000 or so and I will bite. Too small of a market for Meta, but not for those parties.

      • ViRGiN

        for the time being

        don't fool yourself. you know it's permanent.

  • Michael Speth

    Qiest3S is not a revolution but a devolution from the 3. Meta selling garbage hardware at garbage prices but willing to continue to lose billions in order to try and hook the masses.

    It isn't working except for a very small YT bubble who have nothing but praise for their eventual Meta overlords.

    • guest

      Yes, high "garbage prices" is what has been repeatedly killing VR since the 1990's!

    • Stephen Bard

      The Quest 3S is obviously disappointing for veteran VR users, but I try to view it as introducing many more people to the wonder of VR. If it sells another 10 million units, that further expansion of the user base will hopefully generate more high quality games instead of more Gorilla Tag clones.

      • ViRGiN

        more high quality games instead of more Gorilla Tag clones

        You do realize that Gorilla Tag has been #1 PCVR game for ages now? And you have to pay for it on Steam.

        "veteran VR users", "enthusiasts" or other gatekeeping words are meaningless.

  • flynnstigator

    If anyone’s going to make a third-party HorizonOS headset, it needs to have some kind of capability to set itself apart. They won’t be able to compete with Meta on price, so it has to have something like DisplayPort, high-end lenses, etc. Something like a Pimax Crystal with access to all of the Quest games would be pretty compelling, but it would have to be a very premium product with a price to match.

  • ViRGiN

    <fap fap fap>

  • The critics are so far out, you must be very right. VR rules. AVP is a Product Desaster, Quest the better Product. Period.