Minecraft will officially stop supporting all virtual reality headsets after March 2025, according to an update posted to the Bedrock changelog. The update means Minecraft will no longer support devices like the Oculus Rift, Windows Mixed Reality headsets, or the Meta Quest (through Quest Link), as reported earlier by UploadVR.

Last month, Minecraft developer Mojang also announced that the game would end support for PlayStation VR headsets next March. When Minecraft’s spring update rolls around, Mojang says you can “keep building in your worlds, and your Marketplace purchases (including Minecoins) will continue to be available on a non-VR/MR graphics device such as a computer monitor.”

As pointed out by UploadVR, you’ll still be able to play Minecraft in VR on PC by using the Java version of the game — either by downloading a VR mod like Vivecraft or using a standalone VR port such as QuestCraft.

Minecraft initially launched on Samsung’s Gear VR headsets in 2016 before adding support for the Oculus Rift, and PlayStation VR. Before ending support for VR, Mojang also shut down Minecraft Earth, its augmented-reality mobile app, in 2020.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thericofactor@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Why are they removing support though?

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org -2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Probably because VR gaming is basically dead. It never really took off and it's a waste of time and money for them to devote resources to it. Probably like 0.1% of users are in VR.

That being said, part of why it's dead is because no developers want to take chances on it, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Valve was the last one to gamble on it.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

That's not even accurate.

If VR gaming is dead, then what does it say about Linux with about 5 times less users? Like, a low poly game about monkeys has a daily playerbase of a million people there. Mind you, Mincraft has 1 to 1.5 million. Not bad for a "dead" platform. Also, Valve isn't even the last one to enter the market.

I think what you're actually trying to say is that it's too niche, which it absolutely is.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's math. The amount of money they're spending on supporting the VR platforms is less than the amount of money they make for the people on those platforms. They probably have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients.

Linux has some pretty good hedging going on with steam deck.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, I've decided to check the financials of a couple of VR companies since your counterpoint sounded reasonable. The only one working at a loss is Meta. I could argue their business model is in Death Valley right now. After all, they have major capital expenses, which aren't easily covered unless you have a big userbase.

But that's their VR sector. Overall, Meta's profitable and can easily cover all the expenses several times over.

Also, what do you mean by "they have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients?" Firstly, who's "they," secondly, if I understood you right, that sounds prepostrous, unless you're talking B2B.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about VR companies I'm talking about Mojang.

The teams that Mojang keeps to work on the platforms cost more than the income from the people using those clients.

If you make a game, and you decide to support Mac, and Mac only brings in $500 a month but you have to pay somebody $3,000 a month to maintain the client, You're losing $2,500 a month for that particular market segment.

Nothing says you have to get rid of those people or that client, But it's a fiscally sound decision.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

Oh, yeah, that I agree with.

My head was at the "VR gaming" as a whole back when I was writing the comment.

[–] shapis@lemmy.ml -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t see how what they said was contradictory. VR gaming is indeed dead. And Linux gaming with 5 times less users is also even more dead.

There’s a reason why game devs completely ignore Linux as a platform.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

More than 57mil (est.) monthly VR users
PS5 has 116mil monthly users

For how big PS5 is and how small VR is, VR sure has a lot of people playing.

Lemmy has userbase (not even monthly activity) of 0.46mil (acc. to fedidb). Is lemmy dead?

What constitutes for a dead platform to you?

[+] shapis@lemmy.ml -6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Is Lemmy dead?

I mean. Yeah ? Can you imagine any large companies investing in this in any way? I sure can’t.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think what you're forgetting is scale.

Lemmy is niche. VR is niche. Gaming is mainstream.

You can't call a niche dead just because there aren't that many people into it. It's a niche for a reason.

Linux is booming, even though it's "dead." Lemmy has never been this active in its entire existence. Why do investments from large companies matter?

What truly matters is growth. Negative growth is what kills a platform/industry/company/whatever else. VR is growing, Linux is growing, Lemmy is growing. It may not be fast, but they all have active userbases that support their development.

You cannot call a child "failure" just because it never achieved anything in life, can you? They are growing. They can get sick, they can recover. They can also regress due to that illness and die. Only then they're truly dead.

load more comments (10 replies)