Announced at Connect last week, Meta is launching its next-generation avatars in Horizon Worlds today, giving users a lot more customization options to choose from before jumping into the company’s social VR platform.

Starting today, users can dig even deeper into adjusting their avatars’ appearance, including features like customizable body proportions, nose shape, eye size, and lip size. Like its previous avatars system, these also work across Meta’s other platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger.

The sort of flash marketing images you’ll see with smiling and laughing avatars only really paints a part of the picture though, since the sort of smooth, Pixar-esque scripted avatar animations seen on flatscreen simply aren’t a thing in VR. Still, the new avatar system brings a lot more flexibility to the table, which Instagram user ‘mistermavix’ shows off in a recent video:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mavix (@mistermavix)

Meta says in the most recent Horizon Worlds v182 release notes that world creators should make sure their virtual environments are ready for updated avatars, which includes things like making sure features of their worlds interact with the new avatars’ expanded range of body shapes and sizes.

SEE ALSO
Meta & Microsoft Partner to Bring Quest Automatic Pairing with Windows 11 PCs Soon, Just Like Vision Pro

Specifically, attachable items, lighting, and interactable objects like furniture may need adjustments to accommodate the new avatars, Meta says, noting that doorways and walkways should also be reviewed to ensure they comfortably fit the varied avatar proportions.

This follows an update in August last year that finally brought legs to Meta avatars, which came amid a greater push to attract more users to Horizon Worlds with the launch of support for Android and iOS mobile devices as well as standard PC browsers.

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.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • VRDeveloper

    It's still terrible since there’s no way to choose the gender of the character. This is clearly an ideological issue, and it makes me very upset. I have nothing against transgender or gay people, etc.

    But when companies remove the gender option just to include those who are offended by the idea of differences between men and women, it negatively affects our experience. You simply can’t create a man in these editors; they always end up looking androgynous. It's disappointing.

    • ViRGiN

      I'll take androgynous Avatar over steamvr toy figures with chopped off hands.

      • VRDeveloper

        I think they both suck

    • Adrian Meredith

      This was so annoying made making an avatar so time consuming because you had to check every variation to see if it's aligns with your gender.

      If they believe gender isnt binary why couldn't they add a slider instead and mask everyone happy?

      • VRDeveloper

        I agree, having to keep looking at dresses when I just wanted men's clothing annoys me a lot.

        But I go further, companies doing this don't actually include trans people. This is literally the cheapest option to deal with the issue, it's practically like doing nothing.

        Because creating a category for trans people, that truly includes all the physical characteristics of a trans person, would be more costly. In other words, it's as if left-wing movements are doing companies a favor when they defend the idea that everything is the same.

        Besides the fact that, 'why should people be ashamed of the unique characteristics of a trans person?' Why try to force something to fit into unrealistic standards? It only makes the experience worse for absolutely everyone.

        This kind of attitude doesn't make me have less prejudice, on the contrary, I constantly get the feeling that the LGBT group doesn't want heterosexual men to be represented in anything, as if we didn't deserve to be part of society.

        • sfmike

          Because they don't.

      • sfmike

        Bottom line they hate men.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      You can't enter your blood type, natural hair color or different lengths of different fingers either, all of which are considered significant to describe the personality in several cultures. So I'd say your VR experience being negatively affected by not being able to set a gender, while you didn't complain about blood type, hair color or finger length, hints that the ideological issue is actually on your side.

      And as "differences between men and woman" obviously still uses the now anachronistic fixed separation into only two genders, probably not by accident, I suspect you wouldn't be happy either with for example a triangular input field that allowed setting any value between "male", "female" and "other", with a second slider between "stable" and "fluid". Because in that cause you would have asked for more differentiated gender settings instead, not only the mentally safe separation into two, ensuring manhood through a simple, unambiguous "not female" selection. Even though this would allow you to set it to e.g. only "male", "stable" for yourself, with exactly the same practical consequences for your avatar or your life as not setting any gender: none at all.

      I'm not claiming that the current solution is the best or what we should end up with. But unfortunately many people apparently feel offended by concepts outside of traditional (gender) ideas now even being taken into consideration to acknowledge/reduce the struggle of those not falling into one of two easily separated boxes. Even though nobody in any way forces those offended to leave the box they are comfortable in. The mere idea that the boxes aren't strictly separate and for some may change over time seems to be threatening.

      So with any selection beyond "male/female" guaranteed to create a similar reaction to yours, it is understandable why Meta instead prefers to simply drop this setting inconsequential for actual use. Their goal to not offend by not even asking the question is of course doomed when some people automatically see ideological propaganda behind every change away from whatever they are used to. Sometimes change isn't an attack, but simply what based on new insights now makes more sense.

      The best way to get back the option to select a gender would be to demonstrate tolerance towards those with different perspectives, and to welcome new options that include them too while still allowing you to pick the same gender as before. I'm afraid your post did pretty much the opposite and only confirmed to Meta that dropping the gender option was their best option.

      • VRDeveloper

        It's funny how you end up talking about tolerance, while you're intolerant of the fact that I just don't feel represented.

        That's the problem, you're already consumed by ideology.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Not sure how I could be intolerant to the fact that you don't feel represented. At best I could be ignorant of that.

          I'm certainly intolerant towards transparent attempts to sell keeping up existing injustice or trying to preserve one's privileges, as somewhat justified fury. Because these attempts somehow also always fail to mention how they intend to make sure that others aren't treated unfair anymore either. It's usually "I want xyz. For me. Everything else should stay as it is."

          I actually acknowledged you not feeling represented and even suggested a solution several times:

          So I'd say your VR experience being negatively affected by not being able to set a gender …

          I'm not claiming that the current solution is the best or …

          … asked for more differentiated gender settings instead […] this would allow you to set it to e.g. only "male", "stable" for yourself, with exactly the same practical consequences for your avatar or your life as not setting any gender …

          The best way to get back the option to select a gender would be to demonstrate tolerance towards those with different perspectives, and to welcome new options that include them too while still allowing you to pick the same gender as before.

          I'm absolutely fine with you identifying as whatever and getting the opportunity to state that even in situations where it is mostly symbolic with no practical consequence. But your argument isn't "pro-choice" in a way that would also include others that currently feel not represented, instead you only argue "against change" that doesn't allow you to simply continue to act as before.

          And I'm not sure that I'm the one already consumed by ideology here. I identify as a hetero-sexual, hetero-romantic cis-male, but only check the "male" box on forms instead of adding all the attributes to combat misrepresentation or whatever. I'm not particularly bothered by not being able to register my gender identity everywhere, as I am aware of it myself, which suffices for me, and also know that my boring standard gender identity will very likely always be selectable whenever entering it is actually necessary.

          Despite some people realizing they are gay/lesbian/bi/pan/trans/whatever only in their 80s, I expect to stay the same, as I am both clearly attracted to women and constantly pissed of by typical male behavior that comes with lots of ostentation and very selective sensitivity. Like demanding equal chances for all genders only the moment someone suggests quotas for female applicants to overcome unfair hiring practices proven to exist for years. Or insisting every proposed assistance for other groups to be made accessible to all in the name of instant justice for all, even if purpose of the assistance is to counteract existing injustice from some groups having gotten preferred treatment for generations. This is due to very targeted blindspots whenever it comes to questioning their own, accumulated privileges they get just from being male.

          Or trying to reverse Uno "you not tolerating my intolerance makes you intolerant" (nope, see paradox of tolerance). Or insisting on the option to specify the gender they identify as even in unimportant situations, which they never demanded for those that actually couldn't that even in important situations with male/female being the only given option.

          And apparently still have no intention to acknowledge that more flexible gender options would automatically also fix their problem of currently not feeling represented. Much of this actually refers to A LOT of guys, is unfortunately very common and always a red flag for me. I'm not really a "pro gender plurality warrior" in any way, more a "people lying through their teeth to themselves and others to keep whatever they think is theirs, injustice be damned, and calling that a reasonable argument" despiser. And a part-time verbal brute.

          • VRDeveloper

            You definitely didn't suffer persecution for being a man in a modern game company, it seems that you don't understand that the lack of a genre in the editor is a political vision

            And that the industry is hostage to an ideological elite, and that we are literally being censored and persecuted just for not accepting ideological brainwashing.

            Or you pretend you don't know that, anyway, what I had to say has already been said.

          • kakek

            My dude, I tried the editor on my phone like 3 minutes. And there is very much a difference between female and male body type. It's just not named.
            There's 8 types of morphology, 4 of them on the first line are with boobs, 4 others one the second line are the same without boobs. Did you really need to be told wich 4 are male and wich 4 are female ?
            The new editor make it much easier to have a clearly male or female avatar if that's what you want. They let the alphabet people select whatever they want without having to explicitely go pick a gender, but but you're absolutely not forced to have a vaguely androgynous and often fat avatar like before.

            And it's absolutely NOT hard to find.
            It's fine.

            You're clearly on an ideological crusade, you want the term male / female, no other option, because you want explicit rejection of woke ideology.

            You must have enjoyed the other guy's wall of text nonsense, must have conforted you on your opinion.

          • Daniel Nehring II

            It's interesting, I also tried the avatar creator this morning and it's certainly an improvement but the second row bodies still carry over what appears to be a female centric anatomy, hip relation to shoulder, thigh thickness relative to hips, etc.

            i can min/max siders but the design doesn't respect the anatomy as a whole, it really just looks like naive ballooning.

            I won't speak for the poster, but my grievance is that meta is opting to minimize sex differences in anatomy for the sake of their interpretation of "inclusion". It's not just a male/female separation, but that male/female selection imbues each feature with valuable context for the entire avatar. Not just it's isolated characteristics.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cbdcb77a6bbb98c3f91f88f45fb26114efe5daa0f7aa8167e775b3046c2a24cc.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4fbb259068e3a2e7a0cb11af35d8d518911fe78e12c487b0c123860fb0916acf.png

          • ichigo

            explicit rejection of woke ideology

            So we reached the point by just wanting some normality for the majority is a "rejection" of the ideology and blasphemy…

            I tried the editor

            We can debate the subtle changes of character settings forever and i'm sure that's the point plausible deniability goes and hand in hand with it all. Now ask why at this moment are they trying so hard to make it all subtle. Rejection by the majority on a niche platform. Maybe.

            We all know why they have done things in a certain way. Trying to talk it away is either deluded or on purpose and dishonest. (and looking at replies some are trying way to hard to deny it)

            As you point out the term male/female is very important in FACT! its absence is a clear indication of an ideology.

            And we do need to see male/female in order to know that the ideology is NOT there. Because it's the normal majority that use these terms everyday! NOT some forced ideology that finds them offensive and excludes them.

            I tried the editor

            The main point is there a specific ideology in design. "But but but There's 8 types of morphology" This does not address the main point. You clearly understand the point when you said "Did you really need to be told wich 4 are male and wich 4 are female".

            but but you're absolutely not forced

            This along with "WHY do you care" makes my eyes roll to the back of my head. Talk about stereotypical.

      • Daniel Nehring II

        That's a pretty flimsy strawman you've created, are you seriously arguing that sex selection within a character creation process is as frivolous as blood type? What are the phenotypical differences between o- and a+?

        We're not arguing to perpetuate gendered notions of "manhood", rather requesting to have the tools to make avatars which correspond with our desired sex characteristics.

        The choice to remove the male/female selector in favor of a gender-free/agnostic selector certainly appears to me a political choice. It's prioritizing a worldview (which seems to be in harmony with yours) in which an avatar whose physical characteristics are represented on a spectrum. This position feels in alignment to modern gender-queer theorists.

        For me, the avatar creator in meta provides a poor user experience in that I can't create my own avatar to match my likeness. The change toward a pure spectrum representation makes creation and selection clunky for the sake of maintaining a specific philosophy.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          The whole point is that there are attributes that don't necessarily impact look or personality, but are treated like that according to learned models. Which causes problems every time someone doesn't fit into the predefined boxes.

          Of course blood type has no more impact on your look or personality than the date of your birth. Yet blood type personality theory is very common in Japan, attributing being friendly/kind to A, spontaneous/creative to B, confident/aggressive to C, with AB a mix of A and B. It's just as stupid and proven wrong as astrology, but that doesn't stop people from applying their prejudices and treat others differently depending on their blood type/star sign, which can be discriminating.

          If an avatar creator is about "character", it can/has to include things that impact the personality, which might be "was a single child", "born poor" and for some star sign or blood type. If an avatar creator instead is about look, attributes like blood type aren't necessary, even if someone will argue that a friendly/kind person will look different than a confident/aggressive one. Similarly almost all gender specific attributes of "look" cannot be easily separated into two categories. Women on average are smaller than men, but an individual woman can be taller than an individual man, have broader shoulders, more muscles, a flatter chest, shorter hair, a deeper voice and many things more. A female olympic weight lifter will superficially look more "male" than some men just based on physique.

          Outside of genitals/facial hair etc. (and even those aren't always as distinct), an avatar creator therefore needs to be able to adjust physical parameters over a wide range with no clear separation between the genders. And other aspects of look like clothing, hair style or makeup come with certain expectations according to learned gender roles, but are actually completely up to choice for all genders.

          So selecting a gender doesn't really add any more than adding a blood type, instead it is often used to artificially preselect certain settings according to traditional gender roles, even if in reality most attributes are actually a spectrum, with different genders having a different average value, but individually varying more than the distance between the averages. Consequently giving you a slider to determine height, weight and body shape plus a free selection for hair, makeup and clothing is the option that actually matches reality and doesn't accidentally exclude people, even if most people end up picking values that mostly align with traditional male or female gender expectations.

          This is basically about fixing an error introduced by bias. The fix doesn't take anything away from those that still create their avatar as only male/female according to their view. The worst that can happen is that they have to go through more options they don't care about, but that is a question of proper filtering, not gender. Vegans could demand a similar filter to exclude leather from their selection, others demand not seeing certain colors for religious reasons or whatever.

          Fixing an error isn't political, it is getting smarter and acting accordingly. And gender neither firmly defines your individual qualification for a job, your physical appearance or your look. It at most describes different average values for groups, so instances where those averages are falsely generalized deserve to be fixed. The political aspects only enter when people who weren't affected by the artificially limited choices before feel offended by these changes that don't actually take away any of their choices, and imply that there is a hidden political agenda behind this instead of just giving everybody the choice to feel properly represented, usually a suspected attempt to alter existing social settings and roles.

          Their often loud protest leads to things like Meta removing the option to even set a gender, avoiding the inevitable backslash adding more gender options with possible gender specific section presets to reduce inherent bias would generate. Not the most elegant solution, but understandable. And acceptable, as with everybody being able to select every value for their avatar anyway, removing the option to enter a gender and dependent presets doesn't limit your options to pick the look anymore than the lacking option to set your blood type. It only adds flexibility for everyone.

          • Ondrej

            Sex has a gigantic impact on the looks and avatar editor is all about the looks.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You can get exactly the same look by providing exactly the same physical settings without ever defining the sex. Cyberpunk 2077 has no issues with attaching a penis to a "female" character.

            Sex is a biological concept that has zero impact on virtual imaging, you just think it has to due to how society treats gender/sex. An avatar could have a snail's head, implying it is both male and female at the same time, or be a robot that by definition has no biological sex at all.

          • kakek

            The new editor, unlike the old one, very much lets you make a clearly sexualised character, without any difficulty in finding the body type you want, if you so wish.

            It does not USE the term male or female, man or woman, but there's no problem in finding what you want.

            Have you guys tried it ?

          • ShaneMcGrath

            That's why I won't try it!
            If I can't select what I am then I'm not interested.

      • ichigo

        Misrepresenting someone's argument by exaggerating it to extremes is not a good look for you…There is a fallacy name for this.

        Their stance (million dollar corpo) to removing male and female sexes* is being inclusive and representation. When in fact they exclude the majority (normality). So if the only way to expose this is by showing how you are excluded and not represented and them ignoring you shows it's about an exclusive ideology that's signalling to it's comrades. Because you have to play their word games or you're an "ist-phobe far-right".

        "hints that the ideological issue is actually on your side."

        Come on you're smarter than that!

        [body 1 = Body 2] / [Preferred*-pronouns] are a current day ideological insertion and massive red flags for a game from million dollar corporation especially one that's got taxpayer government funding. There is a clear pattern to these modern ideological insertions and games failing aka "woke".

        It's odd that a company would sacrifice appealing to majority when it relies on sales. Don't you think? But at this point it's clearly an ideological cult to the point the CEO and everyone below in their bubble don't even know they are in one.

        There is no "agenda" if your ideology sees itself as the majority (normality). Yves Guillemot – "Ubisoft is not Agenda-Pushing"

        Christian Schildwaechter – "demonstrate tolerance towards those with different perspectives"

        A game for everyone is a game for no one.

        Christian Schildwaechter – "welcome new options"

        sure. But that's not what's happening when they remove options that "offend" and that go against the cult. And don't represent the majority in this pursuit.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          When in fact they exclude the majority (normality).

          They don't exclude anyone, you can still create a male or female avatar according to whatever you consider normal. You may criticize that the settings/choices are too limited or cartoonish, not allowing for more explicit characters like Cyberpunk 2077 for a number of possible reasons, e.g. allowing teens aged 13 on Horizon World. That would be a valid complaint, but has nothing to do with gender/sex itself, only with the breadth of visual choices.

          It's odd that a company would sacrifice appealing to majority when it relies on sales. Don't you think?

          I actually don't think that Meta is in any danger of no longer appealing to the majority, because most people are completely fine with having the choice to make their avatar look however they want, even without having to first filter it through a gender/sex selection that have only limited impact on how people look in reality.

          There is a very noisy minority that won't have that, but looking back onto how society has adapted and actually improved in many ways over centuries, I fully expect that minority to go the way of the dodo and dinosaurs, though not too soon. At one point in history people were appalled by women or people of color being allowed to vote, and I'm sure at one point in the future no one will even consider that choosing their visual digital representation might be depending on setting gender or sex.

          … fallacy … normality … ideology … comrades … "ist-phobe far-right" … ideological insertion … million dollar corporation … taxpayer government funding … "woke" … ideological cult … in their bubble … Agenda-Pushing …

          I'm also pretty sure "woke" is the new "somebody please say Hitler" matching Godwin's law. And I didn't even realize that Meta's avatar creator apparently must also allow to set ones (preferred) pronouns, since why would you bring that up otherwise?

          A game for everyone is a game for no one.

          That idea requires some explanation. It currently sounds like "I can only enjoy it if it is in someway exclusive, so by definition it has to exclude some people".

          • ichigo

            people of color being allowed to vote

            Are you really going to compare this ideology ("woke") to the Black struggle…That's bizarre.

            I guess you're only good at looking at numbers and statistics and mining them when no else wants to put the time into it. Some people are only good in 1 lane and should never go out of it. Because oh boy…

            I'm also pretty sure "woke" is the new "somebody please say Hitler" matching Godwin's law.

            You seem to be seeing it in a very linear way you understand context right? You do understand what the majority mean when they say something is "woke" right? You understand they are using it as a pejorative a negative that has nothing to do with the self proclaimed dictionary definition.

            Meta is in any danger of no longer appealing to the majority

            A lot of what you said in this reply is just noise blocks of text for sake of block of text…With a sprinkle of very very bad takes. The very removal of "male / female" options is the insertion of this ideology and you seem unable or unwilling to engage with this.

            If you think meta are going to make more sales by going all in and appealing to what you assume is the majority around the world*. You're wrong.

            *Hint: the world is NOT USA California.

            Kazuhiko Torishima – (Dragon Quest Japan) on western ideology forced into video games.

            there is a religious concept from the west especially in America that influences their approach. Their approach to compliance is narrow minded.

            Sorry i can't address all your bad takes i'm sure you have more walls and walls of bad take text on this.

    • psuedonymous

      "You simply can’t create a man in these editors; they always end up looking androgynous."

      Counterpoint: the header image of this article.

    • namekuseijin

      I hated the standard feminine stance they choose for all avatars, but I believe now there's choice between more gay or less gay

      • sfmike

        Don't blame gay men for any of this crap because as men we are as just as screwed over by the radical feminists that have control of most major corporations and film studios now as straight men are.

  • The art style of these avatars look bang on, a little disappointing hearing some of the issues with customizing your avatar for men though.

    • kakek

      Dunno, I tried it and, unlike with the previous editors, I did not feel like evry body type was strangely androgynous. It stay cartoonish and safe, but you CAN make a clearly male or female character if you want.

  • ViRGiN

    The hell are those fingernails? You know she doesn't get any job done.

    • kakek

      Dude, I thought EXACTLY the same.

  • lnpilot

    Goodness, those avatars are hideous. Why can't they have attractive designs? Who would want to look like that in VR?

  • namekuseijin

    it's funny how we're in this virtual utopia and yet people choose to be fat, bald, shorty, old there too… I blame that on Mario for breaking up with Greek stereotypes for digital heroes

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Or maybe blame it on people getting burned by the visual utopia brought to us by the unholy combination of Instagram and Photoshop. It expended the unrealistic expectation initially limits to cover pictures featuring models with a whole background support team to everyone on social media. And now has lead to regulatory initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic due to the very real negative impacts this has on the self image and mental health of teens.

      So people choosing to be fat, bald, short or old in VR may actually be an outlet where people are finally allowed to present themselves as they actually look or simply choose to look. Without the danger of immediately getting judged by unrealistic standards like Greek statues depicting idealized heroes, gods and goddesses, simply because it being virtual, it is obviously a choice, not necessarily a realistic representation. So the funny/sad thing is actually that people (have to) choose to present themselves differently than they really are outside of VR.

  • Ondrej

    Do even western people like western 3D cartoon aesthetics?

    Looking at VRchat my assumption is a big NO. And the craziest thing here is that VRChat is flooded by trans, gays and other people who want to escape their RL appearance limitations.

    The dark irony here is that Meta is PRETENDING to cater to these people (classic virtue signaling for investors) while failing at it. But it's even worse: several posts from John Carmack imply that Meta internally is very irritated by VRC community, because the are NOT the type of customers they want to target and it's too popular to ignore completely (the sliver lining here is this "inconvenient" community made VRC immune to acquisition).

  • ichigo
  • Sven Viking

    While I don’t disagree about some things looking androgynous, it is still a massive improvement over the previous avatars in that respect.