Having used my Quest 3 more since my last post, I do notice the friction of using it more and it has changed my views on the tech slightly. For how novel it is, I find myself using it exclusively as a means of browsing the web at this point. I did half expect something like that to happen going in--regardless, I don't regret trying it. HL: Alyx and SkyrimVR were fun, but my interest in singleplayer fluctuates a lot and the additional (not really that bad, but still) overhead of setup every time you want to jump in for a little bit made it difficult to come back all the time. This gets into my main conclusion for the moment:

It's just not there yet

And I'm someone that was (and kinda still is) quite interested in the concept of a metaverse, so I am definitely biased towards the tech in certain ways. But I simply do not find what it offers appealing enough to spend a significant amount of my computer time using it at the moment. You can offset the weight imbalance and tiny battery issues, but you're still wearing this bulky thing when you can just sit at a computer or laptop. If getting in and out was more seamless, I probably would be playing more Skyrim.

I realized that what I have more interest in at the moment is a lightweight and ergonomic HMD that just has a web browser with panes that can float around in space and is seamlessly controllable with hand gestures and voice input (Meta's tech in regards to this is very good and a big step closer, but definitely not perfect). John Carmack has noted that Oculus observed a similar general trend: an interest in using these devices to "watch Netflix", rather than play games or more immersive metaverse-esque experiences.

Palmer Luckey (founder of Oculus) had this to remark in 2018:

No existing or imminent VR hardware is good enough to go truly mainstream, even at a price of $0.00. You could give a Rift+PC to every single person in the developed world for free, and the vast majority would cease to use it in a matter of weeks or months. I know this from seeing the results of large scale real-world market testing, not just my own imagination...

And really, I don't think the situation has changed much 8 years later--if anything, that statement has only been particularly driven home with Meta's efforts being unable to make significant headway into broader markets with the Quest 3. It has the advertising means of a tech giant behind it, billions invested into its RND, and is the best deal in the history of HMDs in terms of price to performance, being sold at a loss. That is basically the optimal conditions to try to get wider adoption: clearly modern VR tech is just not there yet. Meta recently announced that it was scaling back on VR endeavors, which was only inevitable.

steam frame

Valve is releasing their new HMD later this year (probably, maybe) but the specs are not really a step up for the most part, although the optimization in foveated streaming apparently is very seamless and a welcome feature. But overall the only big value add is being on Valve's platform as opposed to Meta's. It's a confusing move to me, honestly. Outside of that mentioned point there is really no reason to get this over the Quest 3, which is cheaper and a comparable experience, as well as straight up better in other features. I highly doubt this will move the mark in terms of VR adoption or anything else. In my view the better option was just to cater to the enthusiast crowd, especially since the HMD at the moment is expected to cost at least 800USD if not more, so it's basically already priced out of the broader adoption range. Their original headset was for enthusiasts, why not this one?