I've bought more than 30 VR headsets since 2017. This is by far the biggest disappointment yet! We ordered it from the U.S. in 2025 because it wasn't available in Europe. Of course, it has its advantages. But a Meta Quest or Pico VR headset can do more than this tech demo. #apple

youtu.be/2T4Z81ev8UA?si=A4BO… A pokol bizony nem biztos hogy az aminek gondolod

youtu.be/vuCnFp8L3PU?si=2kiK… Ohje igen! Nemsokára új Stargate sorozat a láthatáron az eredeti alkotókkal és onnan folytatják ahonnan abbahagyták. #csillagkapu #Stargate

Between 2019 and 2024, we organized 415 VR team building training sessions and events! At these events, we demonstrated 13 different VR headsets and more than 30 VR accessories, including the Bhaptic vest, two different treadmills, gunstocks, and VR motion devices that can be worn on the feet. An average of 30 to 45 people attended the events, which means that over 10,000 people with an average age of 20 to 50 attended over the course of five years. We also worked in the affiliate marketing system of a subsidiary company, but I will describe what we learned in those five years. People aren't interested in anything other than gun stocks. The content creators who showcase these tools can generate a little hype, but when people try these products, they already know what the problem is. The problem is that people buy them, but after 2-3 days, they're not used. Check out the relationship between VR YouTubers and bhaptics. "I can't imagine gaming without it," but you can imagine it, because you haven't worn it in any of your videos for months... Don't buy all this crap, because it'll just gather dust on your shelf after three days.

Few people know this, but the history of Middle-earth was deliberately falsified for centuries. The version known as The Lord of the Rings is merely part of a biased, mythologically sterilized PR campaign designed to obscure the true motives of Gandalf the Grey. In reality, Gandalf was not a wise wizard, but Middle-earth’s most dedicated flat-earth believer. He was convinced that the edge of the world was being hidden by the Elves, the Palantíri, and the “Global Roundness Council,” an alliance working under the Valar. And why did he send Frodo Baggins to Mount Doom? Not because of the Ring. Not to defeat evil. But because he believed the volcano’s peak was the only place from which one could see the horizon of Middle-earth with the naked eye. “If you're up there, Frodo, and you don’t see a curve—then I was right all along!” — Gandalf allegedly whispered this into Frodo’s ear in Rivendell. The Eagles? They had long known Gandalf was obsessed with flat-earth conspiracies. That’s why they refused to help: “We’re not flying 3,000 meters up just to carry nonsense,” said Gwaihir, Lord of the Winds. But Frodo, the naïve little hobbit, still believed in Gandalf. He climbed. He ascended. And up there... he saw it. There was no curvature. But not because the Earth was flat— Rather, because poor Frodo was looking down the wrong way, his field of vision narrowed from lack of oxygen, and he totally panicked. He collapsed. Both figuratively and literally. And then the Eagles—realizing that this poor, clueless soul actually thought he was about to expose the world’s greatest lie—finally took pity on him and carried him home. The rest? The Ring? Sauron? All just stories. A later historical fabrication edited by Gandalf himself, to cover up a laser-related accident in Eriador. He had been trying to measure the curvature of Lake Evendim with a magical focusing prism, along with an elven researcher, but accidentally caused eye damage to an elf who was out boating. There would’ve been a lawsuit—but Gandalf decided instead to write a trilogy to cover up the truth. And thus, The Lord of the Rings was really just the cover story of the Flat-Earth King. #lordoftherings #gandalf #movies #movie #flatearth

The Rise of VR Elitism: Identity, Justification, and Community in Virtual Reality The development of virtual reality (VR) technology has not only created new experiences but also given rise to new forms of social behavior. One of the most defining phenomena among them is VR elitism. This goes far beyond simple device preferences—it is deeply rooted in personal identity, buyer’s self-justification, and the human desire for belonging. A VR headset is not merely a technical device; for many users, it has become a symbol—an extension of their self-image. Because the technology is expensive, complex, and still partly associated with “early adopter” status, many VR users feel they belong to a special group. Some try to reinforce this sense of uniqueness by devaluing other devices, platforms, or user communities. It’s reminiscent of how, in the early days of VR, someone might be seen as a ‘pro gamer’ simply because there were fewer players and their technical knowledge stood out. But as more people entered the VR space, and as new users surpassed them in skill or brought different expertise, these early adopters didn’t always welcome the challenge—they often became aggressively toxic. Why? Because the new wave threatened their special status. They were no longer "the VR guy"—just one among many. And so, some of these early users began showcasing high-end headsets instead of their now-unimpressive gameplay to maintain relevance. Behind this VR elitism lies a simple psychological mechanism: self-justification. When someone invests a lot of money, time, and emotional energy into a particular VR system—be it PCVR, PlayStation VR, or Quest—they naturally want to feel that they made the right decision. This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance: exaggerating the flaws of other platforms while idealizing one’s own choice. Within VR communities, a “them vs. us” dynamic often emerges. The “PCVR elite” looks down on standalone headset users. Quest players are often ridiculed. Console-based VR is regularly seen as inferior—yet console VR users may still consider themselves an elite group in their own right. These conflicts rarely reflect the true technical differences; rather, they stem from a universal human need: to belong, and to feel superior to others. The democratization of VR—cheaper, more accessible headsets and a broader audience—poses an increasing challenge to traditional elitism. As the technology becomes more commonplace, the feeling of “specialness” fades, leaving some long-time users feeling insecure. This can explain why certain communities become more closed-off or even hostile toward newcomers. For VR to have a meaningful future, we need to accept a fundamental truth: technological progress means reaching more people, and elitism is more of a hindrance than a driver of that progress. The true strength of VR doesn’t lie in technical specs but in its ability to connect people and create immersive experiences. Let’s be honest: today’s VR devices barely move the needle. Most new headsets offer only minor improvements—perhaps a slightly sharper display, somewhat better passthrough, or a marginally more comfortable design. Yet these tiny upgrades often come with hundreds of euros in added cost and offer no real advantage in terms of actual gameplay experience. The truth is, many new headsets serve status more than innovation. People buy them to have the latest and most expensive device—so they can be patted on the head by fellow elitists on YouTube or Discord. Because in those circles, whoever just bought the latest model is the “expert,” the “advanced user,” the “alpha.” Meanwhile, YouTube is filled with so-called review videos that mention the “downsides” of a product—but always in a way that spins them into positives: “the colors are a bit dull, but at least not distractingly vibrant,” or “it lacks eye-tracking, but at least it's less power-hungry.” These reviewers use affiliate links—they earn money when you buy through them—so it’s no surprise they never say, “this isn’t worth it.” If they did, they wouldn’t make a profit. And the funniest part? Even a thousand-euro headset won’t give you an experience that a 400-euro one can’t already offer. These are no longer leaps like we had during the HTC Vive era with room-scale VR. We’re stuck in the same place—just in shinier packaging with louder marketing. I’ve been following VR since 2016. I saw the overhyped promises of HTC, read the comments claiming “this is the future, this is perfect.” We now know it wasn’t. Yet no one ever apologizes. Not even after the HTC Cosmos flopped. No creator said, “Sorry, I was wrong to recommend it.” This idolization lives on—only the brand names have changed. I don’t want to be part of that game anymore. Where many people are heading now, I’ve already been. And I’m curious: if this whole hype eventually crashes and burns, will anyone have the courage to say, “We were wrong”? People often say, “This headset finally delivers real VR because the image is crystal-clear.” But those who play daily or compete in VR simulations know: graphics are secondary. Simulator racers using decade-old headsets often say they only improve their lap times by hundredths of a second with new gear—even though the visuals are sharper and the refresh rate higher. Because what really matters is experience, muscle memory, and focus—not how sharp the dashboard letters are. The same is true in competitive VR shooters. Top teams often use standalone headsets with lower graphics and still dominate. You can walk in with a PCVR rig and ultra-detailed textures—but if you haven’t put in those thousands of practice hours, you don’t stand a chance. It might look prettier, but performance and immersion don’t come from visuals alone. Once again, this proves that true VR value lies not in what your headset costs, but in what you do with it. Graphics and specs are tools—not goals. #ar #vr #virtual

Finally, some good news for VR developers! The servers of one of the main providers of VR piracy have been down for days and nothing can be downloaded. I hope it stays that way.

More and more Americans are fleeing to Germany to escape financial debt. I work with them, they tell me a lot. I don't know how you can call the United States of America a good country when the insurance society is only good if you are healthy. Fearing every day that you will get sick or catch some disease that will ruin you financially for life is just a terrible thought. Let's say they are used to the "good" ones...when they are asked to do a job that is "not at their level" then the question comes up, why don't we bring people from poorer countries in the East to do such jobs? what is the idea? :D Poor Johnnie from America doesn't want to clean toilets and would rather have the Albanian marika do it instead? i believe that in america this works well with mexicans but why do they want to take them back to mexico if the american doesn't clean toilets? #America

Does anyone know if there will be an Alien Rouge Incursion part 2? ?Because if I remember correctly it was said that part 2 will come with the Meta Quest version...#VRChat #virtual #Alien

"Less and less people are playing and more and more people are posting. It's not about the experience, it's about the response. It's not the jumpscare, it's the flood of likes afterwards. Sometimes I get sick of the words haptic, HDR, pancake, eye tracking - as if these are the measures of happiness. But what happened to just being fun to play? Why does every VR moment need to be turned into a nuclear war? We should just be happy for each other. But maybe that's too easy." #VRChat #VirtualReality #metaquest #PSVR2

"When someone posts about their newly bought VR headset, it's often not just about sharing their excitement. In many cases, it’s a form of self-justification — a way to seek validation that they made the right choice, hoping others will approve. But when an influencer does the same, the motivation is usually different. It’s often a calculated move — a signal to brands or their audience, aiming for support, partnerships, or even sponsorships." #VirtualReality

VR Influencer Analysis Virtual Reality Oasis: An honest guy with honest VR reviews. The problems of the VR industry led his content creation into an honest silence. Nathie: GamertagVR: A textbook example of how to survive as an influencer by gently stroking every side a little. BMF: Everything's great, everything's awesome, every update is the biggest ever. Add a bit of Jesus Christ, and you've got the perfect content creator recipe. ThrillSeeker: I’ll believe this VRChat addict the day a horse grazes on his grave. SadlyItsBradley: Since he lost his Meta informant, he’s become an Apple cuddler—occasionally peeking over to some Valve fanboys. Matteo 311: Say what you will… he’s Virtual Reality Oasis 2.0. Honest knowledge, no hidden agenda, no fanboy petting. MRTV: Give him a few coins and suddenly everything’s the best ever. WoodooDe: Pimax. #VRChat #VirtualReality #ToxicBehavior #OnlineHarassment #Metaverse #TechCulture #VRCommunity #DigitalWellness #AIart #influencers

I don't even know where to start and I didn't really think we would get to this point...but it's happening. Maybe I should start there, surprisingly people aren't a fan of having a screen strapped to their face like some cyborg-starting intern. Sure, there are two million PSVR 2 users. And Meta Quest is already well over 35 million. Impressive, right? Yeah, it's just that... the developers see about as much of this as a submarine in a VR headset from the surface. The situation is tragicomic: some studios, already disappointed with the first PSVR, haven't given up - oh no, they're heroically running away... to PSVR2 after their Meta Quest efforts failed. There they'll produce the same pathetic sales numbers, only in a smaller market. Genius strategy. But anyway, maybe they should have finally leveled up and not tried the same thing they did in 2016. We already got some proof that you can create beautiful and meaningful games on meta quest, but if the developers don't know how to do it, what can you do...you get a brilliantly bad train and farming simulator that you can kill with the brilliantly bad meta quest version of hitman vr that you can kill with the almost worse pcvr version that will be buried by the fixed psvr 2 version that was made with "sony support". But there is one small thing that no one is expecting... Everyone is pirating on Meta Quest. No, not only "the Hungarians and the Russians". It has become a global sport. And you know what? I get it. For years, we've been getting the same half-baked, three-hour VR experiences that are born with the promise of "an update will come" - and then an update will ruin them. The end result? The user doesn't play, they just... leave. By himself and no complaints... When Apple announced Vision Pro, everyone jumped up. Finally, something new. Finally a big name. Then we saw the price tag - and we looked back. And not just because of the $3-4,000 price tag... But because everything looked familiar. The same virtual screens. The same "immersive experience". The same three gestures, the same display and lens we've seen in every VR tutorial since 2016. Only now Apple-style, with a clean UI and PR-speak that makes it look like they've reinvented reality. (we did apple pro rental in our company, so don't you dare tell me otherwise) But reality hasn't changed. The software hasn't got better. The games haven't got deeper. The VR developers? They stayed inspired in 2016. We're still shooting the same zombies, with the same moves, in the same "tech-demo-smelling" game space. And it's not just their fault. They've simply run out of steam. No new ideas. No risk. Just the "tried and true" that no one asks for anymore. People don't stop buying Vision Pro because they can't afford it. It's because they've already seen this future - and they don't want it. VR developers are not extinct. They're just... left behind. The world has moved on and they're still polishing the 2016 demo. VR gaming is still alive, but only because some obsessed developers refuse to turn off the lights. Except that the investors are long gone - before they've written a single line of code. People no longer use the Meta Quest Store. Why should they? There's the pirate alternative. Meta? Thank you very much, but he'd rather play with AR after throwing in the Orion project. And he's letting VR slide... quietly. and then there are the pcvr idiots who say pcvr is fain ,pcvr is good, buy a pcvr machine because the content is constant and uevr is fanatic....meanwhile... PCVR? It's dead. No, not "dying". Not "fighting for its life". It is simply... dead. The once revered platform is now just a digital graveyard where a few obsessed modders try to breathe life into a zombie body - over and over again. And of course a few sim players, but we'll leave them alone because there's such an ego battle going on that it's pointless to argue with them. There is UEVR - supposedly the salvation. Practically... people try it for 5 minutes and then realize that the same thought process goes on as with most VR modes: "Wow, this is cool! ...Okay, now what do I do?" And alt+F4. PCVR modes? They don't appeal to anyone anymore. The download stats for VR modes that have been available for years are specifically floating in the digital swamp. And not because they don't work. It's because nobody cares anymore. Interest from VR users is... like SteamVR updates: infrequent, slow, and painfully empty. Year after year, enthusiasm wanes. Those who saw it as the future in 2016 are now putting the headset back on out of nostalgia at most - and then taking it down because the game won't start, or because Windows has re-recognised the headset, but badly. PCVR is the party that nobody comes to anymore, but the DJ still plays the songs... in a dark room, to himself. But to make this whole technological mess seem less like a complete failure, they've come up with a new magic word: XR. Here's everything that's "real" but not really: VR, AR, MR - put them together, call it XR, and pretend it's something new. The experience? Well... immersive interaction with digital space - which in English means you're now twice as likely to hit a lamppost. The audience? Thank you very much, but you don't want to lock your life behind an overpriced cyberglass. LG, for example, opened an XR lab in late 2023. A year and a half later, they realised it was a mistake. Bravo. At least they learn fast. Meanwhile, Zuck got so into it that he renamed his company Meta. Only to have his grandiose vision of the Metaverse as a digital Second Life 2.0 get lost in his own self-importance. The VR market will shrink by 12% in 2023. For the third year in a row it has fallen. Meta still dominates - because there is no other. Sony is in second place because it has a console. Apple? Well... the Vision Pro is more of a luxury gimmick than a market-leading product. The only real growth is in the AR smart glasses market. 210% growth, wow! Mainly thanks to the Meta-Ray-Ban collab. Although these glasses are not "real AR" yet, don't worry, they will be soon. Or at least... so they say. Meanwhile, the tech industry has pulled out another wonder weapon: AI. Because if something doesn't work, throw AI at it and pretend it does now. So the future of AR will be saved by artificial intelligence. Somehow. The details? Not important. AI will sort it out. Until then, let everything be online, everything be real-time, everything be smart, and of course... everything collect data about you. That's good. So the future: glasses that listen, hear, respond and log your every move - for your convenience, of course. And if you lose your personal freedom in the process? Well... at least you did it in style. The world of VR and AR is not dead. It's just quietly agonising, but I still love it because I love it. The hope that developers will finally provide us with quality content is there, just no urge to do so because despite the piracy there is still revenue...not as much as there was 2 years ago but there is. #VRChat #VirtualReality #ToxicBehavior #OnlineHarassment #Metaverse #TechCulture #VRCommunity #DigitalWellness #AIArt

Between 2019 and 2024, we hosted over 415 VR team-building events and other experiences. During this time, I met a surprising number of people who were genuinely afraid of VR. When I asked why, most of them pointed to the same thing: they had tried it before and it was the PSVR that turned them off. That might sound odd at first, but it actually makes perfect sense. Before 2019, the PSVR was the most widely adopted VR headset on the market. The real issue wasn't necessarily the device itself, but how it was introduced to people. In many cases, users were thrown into VR without any guidance, without time to adjust. It was more like, “Here, put this on!” — and that led to nausea, disorientation, and discomfort. No one warned them what to expect, and as a result, that one bad experience left a lasting impression. For many, it turned into a deep-rooted aversion. To be honest, I’m frustrated with Sony. I genuinely believe they're largely responsible for the negative public perception VR still struggles with in 2025. If 5 million PSVR headsets were sold, and each owner showed it to just 4 friends, that could mean tens of millions of people had a poor first encounter with VR. And now it’s up to people like us to fix that — while Sony has abandoned the platform and offers no support. Sure, other manufacturers existed back then too, but they were completely overshadowed by the success of the first PSVR. And unfortunately, that “success” left a trail of VR skeptics in its wake.

VR isn’t just a game — it’s a battlefield VR headsets are an expensive personal investment. Spending €400-1000+ on a device is also a way of justifying to yourself that "it was the best decision". When someone else says that another headset is better, it's like questioning their choice - it can automatically trigger a defensive attitude. Similar to how the PlayStation vs Xbox or Android vs iPhone debates work, "camps" are formed in VR. E.g.: Quest fans - cheaper, more accessible, standalone headset, Meta ecosystem PCVR fans - better image quality, modded games, "real" VR experience PSVR 2 fans - technically strong but closed ecosystem People often experience which side they are on as an identity. VR development is still a relatively new field, and there are not as many independent, comprehensive tests as there are for phones, for example. Because of this, users often rely on subjective experiences that differ - and it's hard to see how a different headset might suit someone else better. This may also be the reason why VRyoutubers are no longer a reliable way of delivering information to viewers. Everything is the best, everything is the most reliable. If someone promotes only one brand then they are talked about by users of a competitor's device as "selling out". So an interested person only has confidence in an average person because at first it seems to be the only place to get normal information. The VR market is not very big (especially now that it is going through a difficult economic period), so users feel they need to protect their own ecosystem from becoming extinct or losing support. This intensifies the rivalry. There's a layer, especially on the PCVR side, who are more elitist: "Quest is just a game, it's not real VR!" - while standalone headsets have already reached the masses and are more popular. This kind of "old biker" thinking may be in conflict with new entrants who are looking for something different in VR (comfort, mobility, social features). When someone writes on a forum: "Don't buy Quest 3, save up for a Pimax, that's proper VR!" - he is actually not only giving advice, he is looking for confirmation of a decision he made months or years ago because I know someone who to this day claims that the pimax 5k plus he bought in 2O2O is still the cutting edge of technology, but the Varjo owner I know considers Pimax users to be totally stupid people. If others follow his example and say it's good really, it sends him a message, "You made the right decision." but usually if you give advice to someone who has never tried it, 1OO% of the time they're sure to give a positive answer - Reducing cognitive dissonance is also important: If someone has bought an expensive headset, it will be harder for them to admit that a cheaper one works well. If someone prefers simplicity (e.g. Quest), they will be less likely to admit the technical superiority of PCVR. It's not conscious manipulation, just a defence of our own narrative. The "old engine" type of users tend to think that what they have learned (e.g. SteamVR, driver tweaks, modding) is the real VR. Therefore, they often "teach" in the form of advice, while justifying the value of their own knowledge. Of course, there are also plenty of honest, helpful comments. But if you read the forums carefully (Reddit, Discord, Facebook groups), the gist of a lot of posts is really this: "Look how good my decision is!" "Isn't my choice the best?" And if someone says otherwise? The debate ensues. You're not just buying a tool, you're buying a role. People who use Apple or PCVR often think of themselves as: "I know how to do it." "I'm not following the mainstream." "I can tell the good stuff from the mainstream stuff." And this role is easily damaged when someone else says, "But the other device is good too..." "The debate around VR headsets isn't really about pixels or wiredness - it's about who we are and what the technology means to us." For many users, VR is not just a hobby, but part of their identity: They were, or rather we were, the early adopters, We were the early adopters, the ones who spent months/years with the technology, making videos, developing, building community. If someone said before "it's all dead", it was like saying: "What you love has no future. Your time and energy were wasted." That's a very strong psychological threat, even if it's not literally said that way. That's when we had the Defense Reflex - because their "little world" was in danger The VR community is really living in a state of existential insecurity these days: companies are retreating, game studios are downsizing, no AAA VR titles per month. So when someone says the word "dying", it's like pointing out a fear that many people already feel, but just don't want to face. That's where the warrior mode comes in, because it's not enough to just argue - you have to defend the belief. In a forum or comment there is no non-verbal communication, no tone of voice, no smile - just text. That's why any criticism seems harsher than live. I have noticed this myself and have said a thousand times that the comment may be offensive, but I meant it as a joke, but by offending the other person, it has become an enemy in his faith. If someone types "VR is dying." It may strike others as if they had written it: "You are a loser pushing a failed technology." And there's the comment war. Many VR enthusiasts believe in the future, and that belief is often confused with the state of the present. When someone points out the problems of the present, for them it's not "reality analysis", it's blasphemy. Actually, users can argue about very interesting things. there is the lcd vs oled debate Among VR users, the OLED vs LCD debate is not just about "which one has the better black". This conflict is a perfect example of when a small technical difference is given an outsized meaning. Why? The technical difference becomes an identity OLED proponents often cite the fact that: LCD headsets are faded, washed out, no real black." In VR, the key to immersion is contrast, darkness - without OLED, it's just a light box." While LCD proponents react like this: But what good is black if you have screen-door or poor resolution?" It's not the colours that matter, it's the clarity, the sharpness, the smoothness." "pancke lens is better than afresnel" In fact, both sides are partly right - but few admit it, because: they don't care about the truth as much as they care about winning. 2. Cognitive dissonance strikes again If you've bought an LCD headset, you obviously don't want to hear "OLED is so much better". And vice versa. Therefore, both sides overemphasise the advantages of their side and deny the weaknesses. This is how a panel type becomes an ideology. And the debate is no longer about which is the better screen, it's about which is the better screen: who made the right decision who belongs to the "right side" and of course there's the "When we make a 5% difference into a 100% argument. In the VR community in particular, it is common to turn small advantages into huge flags. Examples: "This headset has a 3-degree wider FOV, so everything else sucks." "This one does 144Hz instead of 120Hz, so the other one is obsolete." "This one has local dimming, the others are all washed up crap." Why? Because those numbers are objective gripes. The number doesn't argue back, and it's easy to adjust it so that "my side" is the better one. The reality meanwhile is: These little things go unnoticed in 98% of the gaming experience. The differences are often only noticeable if you look for them directly. For most users they are not "dealbreakers". But it doesn't matter, because in forums it's not reality that counts - it's position: who is the "smarter", the "more experienced", the "professional VR user"? The OLED vs LCD and micro differences debate is not really about the technology, it's about: self-justification identity protection the search for a community hierarchy Anyone who shows 5% better data is not simply trying to show a technical advantage - they are saying it: "I know better. I'm better at it. I made a better decision." That's why these debates explode so often, and why they become a battle about reality - when really it's just people's egos talking. There's another more disgusting trend besides the bickering, and that's the "positive marketing believers" - in a fog of salesperson bias. Another reason we sometimes hear unrealistically positive voices on forums is: someone is selling their headset. And if someone wants to sell a device for 500+ euros: they're not going to say "it's not really that good" or "the picture is a bit blurry and it gets hot". Instead, it comes down to: "I think it's the best value for money headset at the moment." "The sweet spot doesn't bother me at all during use." "OLED? Come on, it gives a more natural picture." The stakeholder's opinion is not objective It's just like someone selling a car and saying: "It's in perfect condition, with the occasional light, but it's not serious." It's like when they were selling a treadmill in the group, I described how we had a hard time selling it because nobody wanted it after a test, and then the seller described how they loved it, and some poor guy bought it, and six months later in a conversation with a friend he admitted he was glad to get rid of it. The same thing happens with VR - only here on forums, under test videos or in group posts. Behind the apparent opinion, there is really a single thought: "Let it be worth more than I could sell it for now." Why do we believe them? Because they don't look like advertising. It's not corporate PR, it's not advertising. It's a "user" saying it, apparently from personal experience. This is what makes such posts misleading and dangerous: It misleads new customers Stirs up outrage from the "other side And further blurs the line between genuine experience and financial interest. This layer further distorts reality because: people don't know who is speaking honestly and debates become even more personal because everyone is suspicious Ultimately, VR forums are often no longer about sharing experiences - but as I said earlier self-justification identity protection hidden financial interests and a small dose of technobullying (when someone is looked down upon for buying the "wrong" headset) and while we're at it, it's not just private individuals who make the customer look like a total idiot. The 2024 Christmas season was a perfect example of how marketing, influencers and community psychosis worked together - and in a matter of weeks, completely distorted reality. PSVR2: "The festive wonder machine" Almost every tech channel, gamer TikTok, VR-influencer had a positive take on it. The emphasis wasn't even on the technical details, but on: "It's the only VR you can plug into PS5, instant experience." "If you want VR for Christmas this year, this is the choice." The result? Crowds bought it - many as their first VR. Reality a month later: eBay and classifieds are full of sold or barely used PSVR2s. Amazon? at the end of January, over 1OO scrapped psvr 2s are in stock at a €4O discount. People have realised that: not enough games the cable is distracting the PSVR2 is not the same as a PCVR experience, but they don't want to buy a pc to go with it And it wasn't the fault of the technology - it was the marketing that set unrealistic expectations. Why do people still buy this? 1. because during the Christmas hype we don't think - we feel. "We need a present." "It's the trend now." "If everyone says it, it must be good." 2. Because influencers aren't always honest. Many of them do sponsored content but don't always tag it or push it implicitly: "This is my favorite thing lately." "The family loved it." These claims aren't necessarily lies, but they're also not absolute truths - especially not in a technical sense. my favorite is when some electric car tester refers to himself as not getting paid for ads, but when the psvr 2 Christmas misdirection went on he did a video for his tick channel. And what happens next? People sell the headset after the disappointment but they don't remember who fooled them. they don't remember. The debate starts in the community "but it's good" vs "it's over-hyped". That's the ripple effect: first you over-promote a product then it turns into a community disappointment eventually everyone starts fighting for what's right You know, I wasn't fighting between headsets. I've had about 20 different VR device, so if someone else was using it, I didn't look down on it - I didn't understand the people who said "VR is dead" or that this headset was "better for this and that". And yes... I used to get defensive by reflex too: "It's not dead! Look at the stuff they have now!" If a negative article or comment came in, like a herd, we went to comment. And most of the articles were really complete bullshit - but in hindsight, it was completely pointless to have spent so much time on them. Then it slowly dawned on me: I'm not convincing anyone. In fact - sometimes I felt I was only convincing myself. Today I see it differently. I realise that the goal is not to make everyone look at VR through my glasses, but to talk about it honestly - about mistakes, experiences, disappointments, hopes. So if you've ever felt like you've overreacted to a VR topic, or just plain believed the hype - it's okay. I've been there. I'm just looking at it from a bit more of a distance now. #VRChat #VirtualReality #ToxicBehavior #OnlineHarassment #Metaverse #TechCulture #VRCommunity #DigitalWellness #AIArt

#StarTrek #StarTrekTNG #pinball #pinballfx #zenpinball

Unfortunately, the sun fried the displays so we couldn't use the meta quest any more. However, we made something out of the leftover footage 😆 a bit chaotic, but at least a good deterrent #zenpinball #pinballfx #pinball #fxpinballvr #GamingCommunity #virtualreality

I have been following the career of vr since 2O17. A lot of companies have gone bust because they trusted the big voices in the vr community and thought they had millions. So they sold their games cheap. Whether it was meta quest or psvr 1-2 versions or maybe the still dead pcvr, sales never reached the million level.Got money for a headset but saving on content? Here's enough! I think €60 is not even enough...