From the Early Days to the Future of VR - An AMA with @Sweviver

[PimaxQuorra]

Join us for a special AMA with Martin “@SweViver”, a familiar name in the VR community who has been creating content and exploring virtual reality for over a decade. From witnessing the evolution of VR hardware and software firsthand to working behind the scenes at Pimax, Martin brings a unique perspective on how far VR has come — and where it’s headed next.

Ask him anything about the early days of VR, current innovations, and the exciting future that lies ahead!

Also, we’re giving away an OpenMR logo shirt to ten randomly selected users who log into OpenMR during November 2025.

[jaapgrolleman]

One question from me! In 10 years, we’ve seen a lot of companies come and go into the VR industry, from big corporations like Windows to new startups who left. What is it about VR that only a handful of companies still remain, with some new entrants each year? (Are users too demanding? Is hardware difficult to make? Is VR hyped? Then again, there is a very healthy market and slowly growing.)

[SweViver]

Heey Jaap! You really didnt give a an easy start here with this question haha!

Ive been following the VR industry develpment throughout the past 9-10 years and there are many factors that comes into play here. This is just my personal “quick and dirty” POV of the VR industry and why so many companies dropped off:

Maybe the biggest factor that a lot of companies dont survive or just abandon VR is lack of true innovation in terms of hardware. Lets ignore Pimax for a moment and look at other brands first. The HTC Vive and Oculus Rift did indeed set a quite high bar already from the beginning, having near flawless tracking, proper immersion and interaction, despite the limitations with low resolution panels and Fresnel lenses. VR was suddely a thing and got big attention.

The second generation with Vive Pro, WMR and other headsets improved the resolutions and some of the brands partially also improved the optics. At that point, future did look very bright for PCVR and VR in general. And then came Valve Index that set a standard for PCVR. So far so good. More and more companies continued to enter the market, despite never really reaching out to the mainstream.

When Oculus Quest got released, it introduced AIO/standalone VR which was great at the time, but from a technical (or visual) standpoint it also took a step back in the evolution. With Quest 1 and later Quest 2, VR as a whole gained huge traction with a broader mainstream audience which is great for VR in general, but not so great for innovation. The PCVR market and enthusiast-level VR suddenly wasnt as attractive to develop, due to its higher price and lower demand.

In my opinion this is when innovation kinda stagnated. We saw a few new PCVR headsets released, but many just wasnt good enough. Low-effort updates with new headsets became a thing. All because big hardware innovations wasnt really necessary anymore. The big audience settled for standalone VR and thets where the money was made.

Also, a mainstream price level of a VR headset became more of a demand from customers, limiting the possibilities to innovate with improved panels, lenses etc. It just wasnt profitable to do PCVR for a while, despite doing cheaper manufacturing in Asia.

People settled with Quest-standard of VR and there was a point where PCVR looked like it was slowly fading away. Most companies that did WMR headsets pulled out, plenty of other former PCVR companies (HTC, Microsoft, Samsung, Meta etc) just couldnt see the benefit of innovating PCVR when the demand wasnt high enough and margins were too low if they tried to keep reasonable pricing.

Thankfully, PCVR survived thanks to a shy number of smaller companies that - despite the risk and high costs - kept innovating throughout the years. Pimax for instance, while starting as a small company, a croudfunded project back in 2016 or so, kept growing and never gave up on continously innovating. Innovating not only in terms of panels, but also with new and quite unproven features like a wider FOV, eye tracking, DFR, new types of glass lenses etc.

All this was obviously attracting the high-end and enthusiast-level VR audience that never gave up the dream of “perfect VR”. Instead of being a copycat, Pimax created its own niche and continued on that track, taking the risk. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of companies gave up or simply switched focus to mainstream products or even abandoned VR altogether.

But thanks to the smaller high-end VR companies that managed to survive, in the past few years, we now also start to see new companies popping up and heading this way. Finally innovating VR with better visuals, better panelsm, better lenses, a more realistic VR experience. And especially the small form factor for VR headsets helped a lot, where Pimax also been developing for years and now coming with the Dream Air and Dream Air SE.

So thanks to the continous innovation by a few “small players”, we can now combine high-end hardware in a small form factor headset, which looks to be the next VR standard. And today it looks like PCVR is finally growing again and future looks bright.

So to answer your question why so many companies left the industry: Simpy lack of innovation over the years, too afraid to taking the risk and too distracted by the mainstream standalone-VR hype that Meta created and isolated withing its own platform, eventually not allowing other vendors to take part of.

I might be completely wrong here, who knows. But this is at least how I perceive it, by following the development of VR industry the past a decade.

This also why Im still here with Pimax. Innovation keeps me excited for the future

[XRC]

From hardware manufacturing pov

VC cash flooded into the space following the Facebook acquisition of Oculus, this includes hardware and software development

(Ironically Oculus decision based on Zuckerberg experience using the Valve installed Steamsight 1080p demo room at Oculus HQ during their open early collaboration)

The hype wasn’t sustained by the reality of the early hardware (which was based on Samsung amoled cellphone display panels and Fresnel lenses with software distortion correction)

My Vive used to give me gritty feeling eyes after an hour, and it was hard to see properly (the ppd would be classed legally as visually impaired!)

It was also expensive and required a top end gaming PC, drastically limiting potential sales numbers

Facebook then fractured the PCVR market by opening their own storefront and selling heavily subsidized hardware, preventing other manufacturers from making sales

The “summer of Rift” was the start of the gradual decline for HTC, who never recovered the consumer market with some terrible misteps. They also quickly realised Valve were hoovering up software sales due to Steam’s network effect, and the relationship soured somewhat.

Due to Oculus cost cutting and valve’s software dominance it was very difficult to make sales and profit from hardware or software - Vive Pro, wmr, etc.

Wmr soon dropped like Google Daydream as the numbers were just not there despite large expenditure in developing the platforms.

Valve Index was eventually released as cost cutting version ”Frank” of original “Vader” high-end hmd.

It was good but dated on release, and barely moved the needle as Valve found looking at numbers of steamVR users even after the ridiculous expenditure on HLA and Index project.

Bear in mind index was sold d2c to remove middleman cost to enable valve to sell hardware at small profit whilst keeping prices “reasonable” due to lighthouse technology.

Release of Quest further cemented Facebook position, but cellphone processor retarded software development by years, and prevented other hardware manufacturers from entering the affordable space.

Thanks Pimax, Big screen, etc. for doing your thing by finding a niche in the enthusiast markets, both VR gamers and more importantly the simming market who are used to buying expensive hardware.

[ArtFlyer]

A good article, thank you.

Yes, I was amazed when HP just dropped VR but, it’s a fact that both version 1 & 2 both failed for me shortly after purchase. While I await the Super ultrawide pico have successfully filled the gap : )

[dogbite]

I jumped on the Oculus Cv1 the week it released and it was just to play 3 titles. Never went back to flat screen, It was you and Sebastion that influenced me to back the Pimax Kickstarter.

I am grateful that Pimax has stuck with it and mastered high end VR (those early days were shaky).

Many other distractions had me falling behind in the tech until recently. Imagine my pleasure when i recently finally upgraded to even the Crystal light with the hardware to run it effectively. The quality of not only the experience but also the software and service has matured dramatically since then and I have no doubt you played a great part in this. The sheer amount of VR testing you did in those days on your Youtube channel is legendary.

Your valued contribution to VR and Pimax is without reproach and I thank you Sir. You are part of the history of this industry.

[zaer]

I have similar question.. are the 4k Sony micro oLed panels as good as vr gets for a long while. Is there technology in making that can reasonably push higher resolution higher pixel density on such a small panel. What improvements are possible in display tech in 1 to 2 years in the future? Could 120hz refresh rate be featured out to the Sony panels without issues?

[Scudbuster]

@SweViver

I wanted to ask about the 12K QLED (and come on, you know that someone had to raise the question ):

When do you think it will be released and if yes, what do you expect? Will it feel like a sidegrade compared to the Crystal Super or will it push the boundaries of VR?
Or will it be cancelled as a separate headset since the Super’s optical engine can be upgraded to be “like 12K“?

Thanks a lot and keep up your great work!

[SweViver]

Yeah wireless contact lenses sounds like the future, I guess. Im sure VR tech will get there one day, but regarding Pimax, lets first go small form factor with Dream Air, then somehow keep scaling it down to regular glasses, then move on from there. A pair of contact lenses is probably possible one day, but that also requires seamless wireless transmission of signal from some external device. Andthe contact lenses needs to be powered somehow.

Its hard to say when we can achieve certain technology. Usually, innovation moves faster than expected, but I still think we are at least 3-5 years off to see a Pimax RayBan-kinda glasses acting as a 6DOF VR headset with controllers. We can clearly tell how much XREAL and similar companies are struggling to achieve reliable 6DOF with their glasses.

I actually think the next big step is to make Dream Air wireless. We dont necessarily even need to rebuild it. A small Android/Linux device including battery, connected through USB C that streams data from a PC/Steam Machine/future steam deck or whatever. Instead of baking in the AIO chipset like Steam Frame does, I feel a portable pocket-device would be more comfortable (and safe) on your head. Sure that involces a cable from the headset to your back-pocket, but I learned already back in the TP-Cast days, that a short cable reaching your pocket wasnt an issue.

[SweViver]

The more I use the Dream Air and Super MicroOLED, the more I start to realize we have now reached a point where resolution doesnt necessarily need to get higher in VR. As for image quality, it cant get much better than OLED panels anyway. What we can and probably will improve is using:

• MicroOLED panels with considerably higher brightness levels
• Higher refresh rates of course, as you mentioned, reaching 120Hz or even 144Hz. 120Hz on MicroOLEDs shouldnt be that far off. We already have OLED TVs with 144Hz. Who knows, maybe we have a Dream Air MK2 in the horizon haha (just speculations).
• Possibly bigger sized Micro-OLED panels, or 16:9 aspect ratio panels that allows for a wider FOV keeping a good binocular overlap.

Also, since todays GPUs and PCs are still barely enough to drive dual 4K by 4K panels, its pointless to go higher resolution. And going beyond resolution or PPD of the Dream Air, I think the majority of people wont even notice the difference. Its kinda like those 8K TVs nobody really cares about, 4-5 years after being introduced on the market.

[SweViver]

The continous development of the Pimax 12K has been struggling for years now, by the fact DisplayPort 2.1 interface is required to transfer the high bandwidth necessary for the panels that are planned for the 12K headset. The DP 2.1 technology (mainly the controller chip) is still today a premium-technology being too expensive and limited in availability.

I totally believe we will see the 12K sooner or later. I dont see it being cancelled. And yes it will for sure be a separate headset and not just a optical engine/module since the Super mainboard does not support DP2.1. But I suspect the 12K will be based off a modified Super-housing to allow for bigger lenses and panels having a wide-aspect ratio. That is fundamental to achieve the 200-kinda degrees of FOV horizontally.

But as mentioned earlier, before we start dreaming about 200 degrees FOV maintaining todays standard of high PPD levels, we need to be realistic and consider how much GPU it will require to push 90fps even running an optimized game like Half Life Alyx. I dont see that happen even with a RTX 6090, tbh. We already learned from the 8KX era that a wider FOV requires considerably more GPU power, not only because of the rendered resolution but also the fact that we render way more polygons on-screen simultanously.

[SweViver]

Guys, if you have any questions regarding Dream Air, Super and the technology behind it, feel free to ask me anything! Im trying to answer things here during the days and will also sum it up with a video for next week or so.

[Eevee]

Do you think PCVR still has room to grow, or will standalone headsets dominate the future? Like the latest Frame? and btw, how important do you think eye-tracking and foveated rendering will be in the next generation of VR?

[CouchPotato]

Two questions here~

What advice would you give to someone just getting into VR content creation today?
How has the VR community changed over the years in your eyes?

[PZ]

1. Eye-tracking and foveated rendering seem like they could be game-changers for the next generation of VR. How important do you think these technologies will be in shaping the future of VR?

2. What areas of VR—whether in hardware, software, or elsewhere—do you think still hold a lot of untapped potential?

3. Looking ahead five years, do you see the VR ecosystem becoming more specialized with niche experiences, or do you think it will move toward a more unified, mainstream platform?

[Hodshireff]

I have a question! How does Pimax decide which innovations, like wide FOV or micro OLED, to prioritize next?

[Vera_Pi]

Hi Martin! I’ve been exploring virtual reality at Pimax for over a year now, and I’m curious — what do you think is the core driving force that keeps VR evolving?

[SweViver]

Personally, I think it depends what you are playing. For flight/racing/space/etc simulator enthusiasts, I dont see any reason to go wireless. Wireless is awesome as long as you benefit from it. But there are also disadvantages, such as battery life and a somewhat bulkier device due to the built-in chipset. When it comes to Steam Frame, they seem to have managed making the headset really small and light despite the built in Snapdragon shipset, so size and weight might not be a problem. But the fact that it runs on battery and also compresses the image with streaming instead of running native is a no-go for simulator fans.

So although I believe the mainstream/causal VR gamers will mostly prefer wireless PCVR (Quest/Frame or whatever comes next), I do believe tethered PCVR is here to stay for a good while for sitting-down VR sessions, because of the obvious advantages and abilities to run higher resolutions.

Have in mind Frame is a 2160x2160 per eye VR headset. I doubt Frame could have run wireless with the same low latency if it had 3840x3552 per eye panels or higher, and definitely not native resolution without foveated streaming.

Eye tracking will be extremely important from now on, I think. Especially since we now have entered such high resolutions and PPD levels. Todays and tomorrow’s GPU are barely catching up and DFR is many times the only solution to reach acceptable performance when running at such high resolutions.

[SweViver]

Oh wow, this one is hard to answer actually, since Im not a YouTuber these days But I can at least give you my personal thoughts about VR content creation, which has changed a lot over the years.

Back in 2016/2017 or so when I started my channel, we had 2 VR headsets to choose from, Vive and Rift. The focus was not on hardware, but mainly on VR games and available content for VR in general. Almost every day, we had new VR indie games popping up on Steam and that was basically what most VR Youtubers did: Play the games and maybe review them. It was easy times, just enjoying VR for what it was and meanwhile grow a channel. When a new VR headset was out, we all switched to the new headset and kept testing new games.

Over the years, things have changed dramatically. While the amount (and the variety) of new interesting VR games is not as big anymore, we now have a lot more new VR headsets and accessories popping up month after month. The VR Youtubing (at least for the more mature audience) is mostly about the hardware and less about the software today, I feel.

Buy a new headset, review it and do some follow up videos testing various things. Compare headsets, benchmark or just play a game with that headset to gove your audience a feeling of how it performs. A few weeks or a month later, you jump on the next headset. Pretty crazy times, if you think about it.

Im not saying VR gameplays and reviews wont work for YouTube, but its definitely not the hottest topic anymore to grow an audience. Unless theres some big and exceptional VR game coming out of course, which only happens occasionally a few times a year.

If I would start up a brand new VR-related YouTube channel today, I would probably do two types of hardware reviews: short ones for the general public and longer ones for the enthusiasts. To broaden the audience. I would probably also mix it up with other XR-related hardware/software tests and maybe also non-VR related videos related to gaming and PC. Since VR is still kind of a niche, after all, its pretty hard to grow a dedicated VR-channel unless you do something really unique or have some specific talent.

Also, dont do the mistake I did getting stuck in the high-end VR terrorory, just beacuse thats what you prefer more. Even if you dont enjoy Quest/standalone as much, you should give it a try and share it with your audience. Otherwise you will limit your possibilities to grow your channel.

Most YouTubers I know grew their channels the most when they started making Oculus/Meta Quest content, because thats where you will find the biggest potential audience.

So mix your content as much as you can, try all sorts of available headsets and focus on the hardware more than games themselves.

But again, this is just how I would do it today. I might be wrong. Im not an expert and not really a YouTuber anymore.

[SweViver]

1. Absolutely, I strongly believe eye tracking combined with DFR/Quadviews and similar solutions will play a bigger role. Like I already mentioned before, the performance issues we are facing today running ridiculously high resolutions in VR, basically demands DFR to achieve acceptable performance in games and simulators.

   It looks like the gap between VR innovation and GPU performance just keeps getting bigger for every year. Rasterized GPU power just cant keep up with crazy resolutions that new headsets render. So all the workarounds/tweaks we do with DFR/FFR etc are becoming a requirement to actually make games even playable at full frame rate. Same for PC gaming in general, where frame-generation is becoming a standard, whether we like it or not.

2. Oh man, I think almost everything VR-related has room for improvements. Of course, theres a point where we reach diminishing returns if we talk about keep increasing resolutions and PPD or image quality in general. The new Micro-OLED panels are already fantastic and I dont know how much it really can get better, apart from maybe true HDR support and much higher brightness levels.

   But VR is so much more than just a high resolution, colors, blacks and brightness levels. For instance, in terms of the FOV, optical clarity improvements and eye tracking capabilities, theres still a lot to improve before we reach that “total VR immersion” we all dream about.

3. I would say streaming of VR content is the future. I think thats were we are heading, eventually. Here we have almost unlimited untapped potential. But its probably at least 3-5 years away. I imagine we will be able to stream native VR games and experiences through online services, either locally or from the cloud, similar to todays GeForce Now and GamePass that are starting to be very impressive and reliable.

   Its all about improving streaming latency by having faster servers, faster Internet connections such as upcoming 6G, combined with eye tracking and foveated streaming that Valve currently is using with Steam Frame, but all hosted and rendered on the server-side with AI computing. I think we will see a lot more of this in the near future. Once thats achievable, it opens up for a whole new generation of ultra-light VR headsets, compact like regular glasses, running advanced VR games and sims from the cloud, without the need of a gaming PC or high-performance AIO-chipsets.

   And thats also when I think VR will become a mainstream gaming platform, that will grow faster than ever. Accessible to everyone, I think thats the key for VR to succeed and maybe even surpass traditional monitor gaming.