Recently, I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Meta’s vision for the metaverse is and whether it will be realized soon. In the long run, they expect there to be two parts: VR and AR, but the AR part still has a long way to go, and it may depend to some extent on whether VR can achieve a real victory. So in this article, I will only focus on VR.
Of course, no one can predict the future, but there are two main camps:
Believers in VR technology believe that at some point in the next 5-10 years, we will no longer buy laptops and desktops, but will spend our time in VR. They see the obvious advantages of full immersion and believe that the technology is good enough and cheap enough, and it is only a matter of time before we all switch over. They believe that the main obstacle is technology.
Skeptics are not so sure. You can show them a VR headset that is as light as a feather, presents realistic images, has no latency, and has unlimited battery life, but they still won’t bet that most people will choose it over the old-fashioned screen. The question in the minds of skeptics is not whether the technology can develop to the extent that believers hope, but whether it will cause significant behavioral changes beyond gaming and other professional experiences, even if it does.
I decided that this week is the best time to publish my current progress because this week is the Meta annual meeting week, where they will showcase all the latest technologies, and to be honest, I am still hesitant.
I am a tech enthusiast at heart. I can truly feel the temptation to escape the physical limitations and explore the infinite virtual world. But I am also the kind of person who prefers to make phone calls rather than Zoom, so that I can chat while drinking coffee in the backyard. I have observed that in many areas, convenient, low-fidelity experiences have surprising stickiness compared to inconvenient, rich experiences: when I am too lazy to get up from the sofa, I will clumsily edit articles on my phone; I will eat chips and protein shakes instead of a proper meal; I will swipe through TikTok for hours instead of watching a movie – you know what I mean.
So I decided to see if I could figure out the truth.
As time goes by, when I do research, I find that I can switch between the perspectives of believers and skeptics at will, depending on the reference frame I use.
When I think of VR as a virtual version of reality, it is obviously very attractive. Who doesn’t want an infinite mansion where you can play with all your friends at any time? Who doesn’t want to fly in the sky like Neo or Iron Man?
If the metaverse feels like an infinite version of the real world, then it will obviously be very cool. However, to be fair, this is a big assumption.
When I start to consider VR as a technology that must be integrated into my actual life, it starts to feel less attractive. Once the novelty wears off, will the VR mansion really be that interesting? Will playing with friends in VR really be better than group chats? I don’t know what you think, but my group chats basically don’t do video calls. So why would VR solve this problem?
To answer this question, I refer to a simple but powerful model of human behavior created by Stanford social scientist BJ Fogg. The basic idea is that behavior only occurs when there is a prompt, and when your motivation to do it exceeds the difficulty of doing it.
Behavior = Motivation × Ability × Prompt
For example, you are reading this article because you received a prompt through email or Twitter. You have learned from previous experience that you like this type of article, and maybe you are curious about the metaverse, so you are very motivated. You probably know how much time and effort it takes to read this article, and you have the ability to start it right away. These three elements come together at the same time, and the behavior occurs.
The interesting thing about this model is that some factors are easier to control than others. Specifically, motivation is relatively constant, and ability is largely influenced by technology.
This is bad news for virtual reality.
VR is a demanding technology. It is not only difficult for engineers to get right, but also for users. For many people, the headset is uncomfortable, it deprives you of the ability to see and hear the real world clearly, and it requires you to learn new ways of interacting.
Assuming you overcome all these obstacles, there is still the question of how VR fits into your life. Do you want to take off the helmet and disconnect from your virtual friends every time your partner or child enters the room?
If we plot VR against other computing devices in terms of “demands” to “convenience,” it would look like this:
From easy to difficult:
- Watches are the easiest because they are on your wrist, invisible when you don’t need them, but all
