Success Stories

Web3D/VR/Metaverse Deployment Comparison for VR Commerce Project

Our corporate IT client needed to showcase to his customers, different ways of enabling eCommerce through Virtual Reality.
The focus was to provide the customers, with a simple and interactive way to purchase products in 3D/Immersive environments, and showcase the differences between them, aiming to select the one that best fits to their needs.

Therefore, 4 versions were created for the same shopping experience. A custom high-profile space was created in 3D, showcasing expensive products, and allowing the user to find more info about them, and purchase through the experience, connecting with our client's APIs (when possible)

1) VR / Meta Quest: using a headset the users were able to navigate the experience.
- Pro: fully immersive experience, the best for the VR feeling, and integrated with the APIs.
- Con: requires the user to use a VR headset, which sometimes not everybody has.

2) WebGL: web-based version, accessed with a desktop computer
- Pro: Easy to use! Great immersive experience, integrated with the APIs.
- Con: loses a little the immersive feeling

3) Desktop: works on a desktop computer
- Pro: maximmum visual quality is possible. Integrated with the APIs
- Con: requires the users to download a desktop app

4) Metaverse Framework: we used Spatial.io for this.
- Pro: easy to access on different devices (VR/desktop/Mobile App). Customizable Avatars
- Con: lack of integration capabilities. Graphic customization posible but limited.

In the comparison above, you can see the visual difference between a web-based custom-created experience (left) vs a Spatial.io scene containing the same.

The web3D version has 100% freedom to create what we want, including static or video/animated walls, which is not possible on Spatial.io

Spatial.io makes it easy to incorporate 3D Avatars and has all the communication tools at hand when you are inside the experience. Those elements are possible to incorporate into the web3D experience but need to be defined and added.

This VR (Meta Quest 2) capture shows that the visual quality is pretty much the same as in the desktop app. That’s thanks to the intensive work executed on optimizing the 3D content, textures, and lighting.

All the customizations and integrations were possible to apply, and this version was one of the most appreciated by some of the end users.

For the VR (Meta Quest 2) version, a digital keyboard was added to capture text input by the user.

That’s not needed for the Web3D, Spatial.io, and desktop versions, as the user utilizes the computer or mobile device keyboard.

 

In summary, the optimum version is the one that best fits the end users’ needs.

We are deploying several Web3D projects, as they don’t need to install an app, and at the same time, the visual quality is high.

When users don’t worry much about visual customization and prefer an avatar-ready and faster deployment, Spatial.io and other metaverses frameworks, work best.

And for an immersive experience, the VR version is amazing, especially when paired with the right UX and audio.

Back to Success Stories

Contact us and let's create something amazing together!