VR Industry Taking Steps to Make Cross-Platform Development Easier

Oculus and Microsoft recently started shipping OpenXR (V1.0) conformant hardware and software solutions, simplifying the software development process by allowing engines and developers to use OpenXR Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to target multiple supported platforms, instead of developing through each platforms’ proprietary APIs. Earlier, Valve also announced it was moving to support OpenXR for SteamVR in place of advancing OpenVR, an unsurprising move considering Oculus and Microsoft were already moving to support OpenXR and Unity (in January 2020) announced its next update would end official support for OpenVR (along with Google VR/Daydream and GearVR). End users shouldn’t see any interruption in their use of SteamVR hardware, as Valve will provide the necessary plugins to ensure current devices will continue to support both existing and future software.

With Oculus, Microsoft, and Valve onboard Sony remains a key “holdout,” although it is a promotor member of the Khronos Group; quotes are used around the term holdout since Sony will very likely make the move to OpenXR with the next generation PlayStation VR (PSVR). There is less of a reason to do so now with PSVR at the tail end of its lifecycle. Others like Varjo and Google have also begun supporting OpenXR.

Is this the end of fragmentation? 

The movement toward OpenXR may make the market more homogenous from a development perspective, but to the end user it might look very much the same—supporting OpenXR, for example, doesn’t mean Oculus’s Virtual Reality (VR) store or PlayStation will natively support all Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs). Facebook has a lead in the consumer Personal Computer (PC) and standalone VR segments, suggesting the company, at this moment, could have more to lose if it opened its platform to all VR HMDs. Sony’s PSVR remains the most isolated, although the platform resides almost entirely in the consumer space and, as part of the PlayStation ecosystem, is predominantly focused on gaming. Maintaining some separation between platforms is not a negative outcome, and is in fact healthy for the VR industry. For example, the game console market continues to support three platforms, with good cross platform support by developers, although Valve’s Steam distribution platform could hinder competition if it becomes the primary distribution hub for VR content for most HMDs. Quite a bit of the enterprise solutions are not distributed through these platforms (either preinstalled or side-loaded), so this may pertain more directly to the gaming market. Depending on what (if anything) follows Congress’s antitrust hearings with Apple and Google/Alphabet (Facebook and Amazon were included as well), this could prevent such an outcome, presuming the attention from these hearings is extended to others like Valve and Steam.

Regardless, the market overall is progressing in the right direction toward establishing a more unified industry with OpenXR. In addition, next-generation hardware, such as a new Oculus Quest, could further blur the lines between HMD categories and possibly Augmented Reality (AR)/VR. Oculus is expected to at least announce a next-generation Quest HMD in the coming months (during 2H 2020), and speculation (along with a potential leaked image) suggests it will be more of an evolutionary update than a substantial change to the only year-old device. This could take the form of increased Random-Access Memory (RAM) and storage, an updated processor (the current Quest is based on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 835), and a slightly smaller/lighter form factor. The screen resolution, which is already better than some PC HMDs, could see an upgrade to better serve productivity applications and enterprise. Regardless, the standalone hardware is closing the gap between tethered and standalone (some devices like the Quest can also served as a tethered HMD) and as more devices support Mixed Reality (MR) we expect to see more crossover in applications between AR and VR—another critical area where OpenXR will serve a key role.   

Considering VR’s initial hype and slow uptake, it is easy for companies to brush VR or even immersive technologies off, and some still hold the opinion that these devices are solutions in search of a problem. In some regards this sentiment is not inaccurate—designers can, and to date have, designed in 3D using 2D displays, virtual meetings and collaboration occur daily via video streaming services or other conventional communication tools, and even training, which remains one of VR’s strongest forays into the enterprise markets, has been conducted to good results without immersive technologies. Research and case studies do show positive results from the use of immersive technologies—for example, better memory retention/more effective training and reduction in costs (e.g., reduced travel, ability to train virtually on expensive equipment, etc.), but compromises are still made due to limitations in current-generation hardware. Many immersive collaboration services, for example, are making a strong push to support Oculus Quest, even though it offers a more compromised compute and storage environment when compared to tethered HMDs running on high-end PCs. The resolution of the devices (or field of view for AR in particular) also makes some tasks a challenge, such as reading smaller text or examining finer details, although Varjo is already showing what is possible in this regard and growing number of companies are starting to get a better perspective of immersive technologies.

In the early days, when the hype was high, the majority of conversations spoke about how VR was going to revolutionize industries and eventually the world, but VR’s trajectory early on didn’t match these expectations and many of those grandiose visions gave way to pessimism and skepticism. Even before COVID-19 sentiments were already changing for the better, but the pandemic has accelerated these trends, as has been true with other technologies, and now a growing number of conversations put VR and immersive technologies into a better context and perspective.

More and more now see immersive technologies and solutions in the same light as mobile devices. ABI Research has espoused this viewpoint in the past, but for a period this pathway appeared to be stalled. Mobile VR essentially collapsed, the industry was looking for a win, and in part the Oculus standalone devices answered this call. With standards like OpenXR taking shape, the industry is back on track. Now it is easier to draw parallels to VR and some of the same skepticisms the smartphone industry faced before it became what it is today. Apple’s first iPhone had skeptics who said a pure touchscreen wouldn’t work—people need real buttons. The Apple iPad was viewed by some as merely an oversized smartphone that wouldn’t find a role next to smartphones and laptops. Samsung’s first “phablet” device was said to be too large, and would remain a niche product/segment—now we don’t even use that term anymore. These skepticisms in the mobile device market mirror some of the same points brought up about VR as a solution in search of a problem.

It is imperative to consider what VR and immersive technologies will do as the market evolves and moves forward and not look to the future fixated on what is available today. In a smartphone world dominated by Apple and Google, we often forget about the Palm devices, Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile, Symbian, and Blackberry smartphones that preceded these platforms. VR is still in that stage of its development. Like many early hype cycles, we fall into that proverbial trap of the “Field of Dreams”: you can’t just build it and expect people to come (at least not the mainstream), you have to iterate on it to eventually reach a wider audience, and next-generation hardware and standards like OpenXR are those steps in the right direction.