Do you wonder why not all of us have a VR or AR headset on our head?

I think there are three reasons: technological, economic and psychological.

Right now there is no revolution. If we look back, years ago, spatial computing (AR and VR) made great progress. But its adoption did not go from 0 to 100. It went, perhaps, from 0 to 10. So, it lacks the speed and the disruption that is needed to talk about revolution.

The tendency to hyperbole is not surprising. It is widely used by the media. It seems to be the only possible way to attract the attention of readers and content users who have less and less attention span.

But this hype has generated unrealistic expectations in the public. Let’s look at the reasons for this in more detail.

technological reasons

The headphones are quite uncomfortable. They are not meant to be worn constantly. It is possible for a passionate gamer to lose themselves in a VR game, but the feeling after each session may not be pleasant.

Little can be done for mental restlessness. VR works if it’s immersive, if it feels like an alternate reality. And this is the problem when you take off your glasses: it takes a while to reconnect with the real world.

For physical discomfort, the solution will clearly be lighter devices and improved technology to prevent nausea. This is mainly due to bad experiences, but it is a problem because it creates a negative memory.

Although AR/VR headset shipments grew in 2021, reaching 11.2 million units, that number isn’t actually very large in terms of mass adoption. The low number of headphones sold leads to a second technological problem.

So far no killer app has come out. There is not a single app that is world renowned. Especially for AR, with the exception of Pokémon Go (for mobile). Companies are not yet assured of ROI and are not investing in content, leading to slower adoption. According to the research, in 2020, the lack of content was the main barrier to adoption of virtual reality.

A third problem links the previous two. Standalone headsets aren’t powerful enough to support high-end gaming. Wired headphones cost a lot more and also need a high performance computer. As a result, they sell less. With a smaller potential audience, it doesn’t make sense to invest in disruptive content.

AR headsets don’t have apps for the general public yet. And apps on smartphones and tablets are impractical. It’s nice to see magnified content on a screen and interact with it, but holding the device all the time is not.

Economic reasons

Bottom line: headsets, experiences, and games cost money.

If I spend $400 to get a standalone headset, we can fairly say that I won’t go broke. But if I spend, for example, 50 or 60 euros on games that last an afternoon or that are beta versions, I’ll think about it a bit.

For example, Vader Immortal l it’s precious for a Star Wars fan. But it’s disappointing for its short length and it doesn’t help the case to know it’s part of a trilogy (so to finish it off, more money)!

The Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners it is more elaborate. Too bad they forgot the ability to save your progress whenever you want. It is not very easy to use.

We should add that at the time of writing, a global problem that affected costs is also causing delivery delays: components for electronics are hard to find. So it’s also hard to get the hardware.

But, the headphones are the least significant obstacle. In the corporate environment, VR and AR experiences can cost figures that are not always within the availability of companies. Perception of value is subjective, but we can safely say that a VR or AR marketing campaign won’t cost as much as one done with billboards and flyers (still a lot less than one done on TV, anyway).

A training program using virtual reality certainly costs more than a PDF with a classroom teacher, videos, and photos.

The same goes for an AR marketing campaign. Communication agencies are giving it a serious try with campaigns using AR for their clients, but they are often in competition with other agencies and price becomes paramount. So the cost matters.

psychological reasons

The psychological reasons can be summed up in one word: distrust.

If you tried a poorly done experience, you didn’t like it and you won’t have a good memory of it.

Maybe you felt sick. There are some people who are particularly sensitive to virtual reality. Or it may have been because the technology was still in its infancy and nausea was common for many. Or because, again, the experience was poorly done and did not take certain things into account. For example, in the beginning, taking 360° shots of cars on a race track was almost a real nausea. Now it is no longer the case.

However, if for one or more of these reasons you have been feeling ill, you may not want to try again.

With AR, there’s another sticking point: downloading the app. Now, with WebAR, this friction is partially, but not completely, resolved.

Clearly, all of the above negatively affects demand, which slows down the production of content.

conclusion

I tried to explain the various reasons why we are not yet in a world like the one imagined by Keiichi Matsuda in hyperreality movie, or we still don’t have VR as in ready player one.

For those of us who work in the fields, the invitation is: think about the present. There are sufficiently exciting stories, and there is no need to pontificate about communion, democratization, revolution, etc.

To end users, I suggest not paying attention to clickbait headlines and news. There is no revolution coming, certainly there is strong momentum in the technology, but mass adoption is still some way off.

guest post

About the guest authors

Andrea Roberto

Andrea Roberto was born in Italy, studied East Asian Languages ​​and Culture (Chinese + Russian) at university and worked in China for 12 years. In 2017, she started the virtual reality journey with Augmenta Srl. Ella Andrea is passionate about languages ​​(she speaks 5 + 1), and she has been studying marketing and behavioral sciences applied to marketing for two years. She is a technology enthusiast, but not a nerd, and focuses on the use of technology, not the technology itself.