VR Platforms 2025: A Developer’s Comparison

After examining each platform individually, it’s helpful to compare them across a few key dimensions that matter to developers: ease of access (indie friendliness), monetization potential, cross-platform considerations, and future growth trends. Each VR platform has its own mix of these factors, which can influence a developer’s strategy.

Ease of Access for Indie Developers

From an indie developer’s standpoint, SteamVR and Viveport are the most accessible. Steam requires only a one-time $100 fee and basic technical verification – there’s no concept of “approval” beyond ensuring your game isn’t blatantly broken or against basic rules. This open door means virtually any indie can publish on SteamVR, whether you’re a solo dev or a large studio.

Viveport similarly has an open submission; if you’ve got a working game, HTC is happy to host it. In fact, HTC’s explicit goal is to attract more content (hence their high revenue share incentives), so they impose minimal barriers. Pico is also relatively welcoming – while they do have a review, they advertise an open store policy​. Indie devs have reported that getting onto Pico’s store is far easier than Meta’s, often just requiring that the game meets functional standards and is VR ready. Additionally, Pico’s developer funding program indicates they are eager for indie content, even co-investing in promising projects​.

On the other end, Meta Quest’s official store and PlayStation VR are the toughest nuts to crack. Quest’s curation means you often must pitch your game concept (sometimes even with a demo) and await Meta’s judgment. Many capable indie games have been relegated to App Lab because Meta’s store had a high quality bar or a particular content focus. This can be frustrating – an indie could have an excellent, innovative idea yet still hear “not at this time” from Meta. To Meta’s credit, App Lab provides a fallback so at least the game can reach users (with less friction than pure sideloading), but it’s not equivalent to full store placement. PlayStation VR2 is even more gated simply due to the traditional console model: you must become a licensed PlayStation developer.

That process can involve showing a business entity, signing NDAs, and sometimes demonstrating a track record or prototype. It’s not insurmountable – many small indies have become PS developers – but it’s not as instantaneous as, say, uploading a build to Steam the day it’s ready. Moreover, the certification process for a PS5 game can be daunting to teams unfamiliar with console development, requiring time and possibly the need to hire QA or consultants. So, while anyone can theoretically develop for PSVR2, in practice it’s often mid-sized and up studios that do, or indies who partner with a publisher to navigate the process.

Meta Quest vs Pico: It’s worth highlighting the difference here. Meta’s walled garden vs. Pico’s open gate truly sets them apart for an indie. If your game is a bit experimental or geared toward a niche, Pico will likely still take it, whereas Meta might not. For example, a story-driven slow-paced VR adventure might get lukewarm interest from Meta (if they doubt its mass appeal) but Pico could welcome it to diversify their catalog. Steam vs. Viveport: These two aren’t either-or; typically you’d just do both. But if for some reason you only could choose one, Steam’s larger user base makes it the primary target (with the risk of more competition), whereas Viveport’s ease is comparable but reaching fewer users (with the perk of potentially more revenue per user thanks to 90% rev share promos​.

Monetization and Revenue Potential

Monetization involves both how much you earn per sale and how many sales you can get. All platforms except Viveport generally stick to that 30% platform cut​. That’s the baseline that doesn’t really differentiate Steam, Quest, Pico, or Sony (they all leave ~70% to the developer, with some nuance for subscriptions on Quest​). Viveport’s limited-time 90/10 split means devs can earn a bit more per sale there​, but if sales volume is 1/10th of what it would be on another platform, that benefit is moot. The real variation in monetization comes from user base and buying behavior:

SteamVR (PC): Sales potential on Steam depends on hitting the relatively small but global PC VR audience. If you make a hit game that appeals to the PC crowd (say a hardcore simulation or a moddable game), you could sell tens of thousands of copies on Steam over time. But hitting, for example, 100k+ sales on SteamVR alone has been rare for VR titles (exceptions include ones that became flatscreen hybrids or were heavily promoted). Steam’s frequent discount culture can help extend tail sales – VR users wait for Steam sales to pick up titles they missed. As a dev, you might see a long tail of revenue but perhaps not explosive launch numbers unless your game already has hype. One plus: PC VR users often pay premium prices for high-quality VR (they’ll pay $30–$40 for a robust game, whereas on mobile VR the expectation might be lower). Keep in mind, a notable chunk of SteamVR usage comes from Quest owners using Link – those users might opt to buy on Steam for cross-compatibility. So SteamVR store can indirectly reach Quest owners who prefer PC performance for certain games.

Meta Quest: This is currently where the money is for many VR devs. If you secure store placement, your sales can potentially outstrip Steam by multiples. We’ve seen several indie VR games report that Quest revenue surpassed their PC revenue. The Quest’s user base is both larger and more active in VR (since it’s their primary device for VR). As mentioned, Meta announced $2 billion in content spend in about 4 years​ – that’s money in developers’ pockets (minus Meta’s cut) and a lot of it has gone to indie teams behind top apps. Some individual games have grossed over $10 or $20 million on Quest alone. Pricing on Quest is middle-of-the-road: top titles often launch at $30 or $40, smaller titles $10–$20. The store isn’t as discount-heavy as Steam, but Meta does run sales and bundles. For an indie, if your game resonates with the broader audience (think intuitive gameplay, comfort, maybe fitness or social elements), Quest can be a gold mine. On the flip side, if your game is very niche (say, an ultra-realistic flight sim), the Quest audience might be less interested or the device might not handle it well – limiting your monetization there.

PlayStation VR2: Monetization here can be hit or miss. If you manage to be among the standout titles, you could benefit from console gamers who are used to paying console prices (some PSVR2 games sell for $40-50). And with relatively few games available, a portion of the PSVR2 user base might buy every decent game just to have content to play – we saw that behavior with PSVR1. However, the smaller install base caps the upside. If only 2 million people have the device and perhaps 10-20% of them are regular game purchasers, your reachable market might be on the order of a few hundred thousand individuals at most (until the hardware base grows). That said, those individuals have shown they are willing to spend. For example, a VR exclusive like Resident Evil Village VR (free for owners of the flat game) doesn’t directly monetize, but something like Gran Turismo 7 VR surely drove sales of the base game among PSVR2 owners. If you’re an indie with a compelling PSVR2 game, you might also get featured in PS+ (Sony’s subscription) or other promotions in the future, which could provide a revenue boost (Sony has paid devs in the past to include games “free” on PS Plus). In pure sales, a strong title might sell tens of thousands of units on PSVR2 – less than Quest, but at a possibly higher price each.

Pico: Monetization on Pico today is modest simply due to user count. However, revenue share is standard and ByteDance might not hesitate to feature your paid app. Pico users likely have similar willingness to spend as Quest users (the devices cost similar amounts). ByteDance has deep pockets, so one could speculate about them subsidizing content or doing aggressive sales – but currently their main draw to devs is the incentive program (grants, etc.). If you secure a grant, that’s effectively monetization upfront: e.g. they might give you $100k to bring your game to Pico, which can be huge for a small studio. In-store sales after that would be bonus. If Pico’s market share grows, monetization could start to rival Quest in certain regions (for instance, a game localized in Chinese could sell very well on Pico in China).

Viveport: Direct sales monetization here is limited. Few users will buy your game on Viveport instead of Steam unless there’s an exclusivity or a big sale. So most devs pricing on Viveport keep it identical to Steam and consider any sales as extra. The interesting part is Viveport Infinity. It won’t make you rich, but it can provide steady income and reach users who never heard of your game. Some developers liken it to old-school arcade or licensing models – you get a small cut when someone plays your game, which can add up over months and years with enough subscribers. One strategy is to launch at full price on the main stores, and later, once initial sales dwindle, opt into Viveport Infinity to capture the subscription crowd for recurring revenue. Since HTC maintains an ~80% payout from the subscription pool​, if your game is engaging and keeps players coming back, it can yield a decent ongoing return.

In summary, Meta Quest currently offers the largest revenue opportunity for most indie VR developers due to its user base and store dynamics. SteamVR is a close second in importance – while individual earnings may be lower, it’s a must-have baseline and has outlier potential if your game grabs the PC audience. PSVR2 can be lucrative on a per-user basis, but total reachable users are fewer; it might be more of a prestige and “nice additional revenue” platform at this point. Pico is an emerging monetization platform – possibly small now, but don’t underestimate the backing of ByteDance; it could ramp up quickly, and early movers could benefit. Viveport is generally a supplemental income source – the platform likely won’t make or break your studio, but it can provide an incremental boost, especially with the high rev share promo in 2024 and the subscription model paying over time.

Cross-Platform Compatibility and Strategy

Cross-platform development is a wise approach in VR given the fragmented market. Thankfully, there’s been a convergence around OpenXR, which all major platforms now support to varying degrees. This means an engine like Unity or Unreal can let you write your core game once and deploy to SteamVR, Quest, Pico, etc., changing only the platform-specific features and doing performance tuning per device.

In practice, many VR indies launch on multiple platforms: e.g. a game might debut on PC and Quest simultaneously, or PC first then Quest later (after optimization). SteamVR and Quest are often the primary combo – SteamVR for the high-end version, Quest for the mass-market standalone version. PSVR2, if added, usually comes a bit later due to the extra porting effort and certification. Pico fits in wherever you target Quest (since if it runs on Quest, it likely can run on Pico with minor tweaks).

From a technical standpoint, cross-platform considerations include input mappings (e.g. different controller button layouts – OpenXR helps unify a lot of this), performance profiles (PC vs mobile), and SDK differences. But Unity’s XR Management or Unreal’s platform plugins abstract much of it. It’s common to see VR games advertise “Now available on Quest and Steam, with PSVR2 coming soon” – reflecting that it’s feasible to cover all with a small team.

Сross-play multiplayer is another aspect: Some games allow Quest players to play online with PC players (e.g. Population: One did between Quest and Steam). This can greatly help a multiplayer game’s longevity by uniting the user base. Meta doesn’t forbid cross-play (they even encourage it for games like Echo VR in the past), and Steam of course is open. Sony historically has been cautious about cross-play, but they have allowed it in some cases (Firewall Ultra, a PSVR2 game, does not have cross-play with its PC counterpart as of now, but future titles might).

As a developer, implementing cross-play means dealing with multiple backends or using an independent server that all versions connect to. Cross-buy is another issue – mainly relevant in the Oculus ecosystem (Rift store vs Quest store). Meta used to encourage cross-buy (if someone bought your game on Rift PC store, you could let them have the Quest version free). But since the Rift store is legacy now, this is less of a concern. Steam and PlayStation are separate, so no cross-buy there at all. Some developers might give Steam keys to users who bought a Viveport version or vice versa as a courtesy, but that’s manual.

One must consider platform exclusivity too: Meta and Sony have in some cases paid for exclusives, which obviously means not going cross-platform (at least for a time). That can secure funding but at the cost of audience breadth. Indies should weigh the short-term gain vs long-term community building; a timed exclusive on Quest or PSVR2 might net upfront cash, but launching later on other platforms means you miss the initial hype window on those platforms.

In general, a cross-platform strategy de-risks your project. For example, if Quest store sales end up lower than expected, perhaps Steam users pick up the slack, or vice versa. Each platform has distinct user demographics and preferences, so a game might underperform on one but overperform on another. A cartoonish, casual game might explode on Quest but barely blip on Steam, whereas a complex simulator could be beloved on Steam but too niche for Quest. By being on both, you capture both audiences. The effort to port is usually worth the additional revenue streams.

Future Growth Trends and Considerations

The VR landscape is still rapidly evolving as of 2025. Future trends could significantly impact each platform:

Meta (Quest): Meta is expected to continue its aggressive push. The Quest 3 launched with improved mixed reality capabilities and a more powerful chip, enabling richer games (early 2024 titles are already leveraging better graphics on Quest 3). We can anticipate a Quest 4 in a couple of years, perhaps targeting an even lower price or higher fidelity. Meta’s strategy is to broaden VR’s appeal – their subsidized pricing and big marketing campaigns mean the Quest platform could easily double its user base in a few years if a “must-have” app or just steady growth continues. For developers, this trend means the Quest store will remain a top opportunity, but also more competition as the gold rush attracts more studios (including big players). We might see the Quest Store loosen its curation slightly as the library needs to grow to satisfy a larger audience, or conversely Meta might keep it tight to ensure quality. Also, Meta’s focus on the “metaverse” and social connectivity might drive new features (e.g. shared social spaces, better avatar integration) that developers can tap into. They also launched Horizon Worlds and are integrating user-generated content – not directly related to selling your game, but part of the ecosystem to be aware of.

PlayStation VR2: The future for PSVR2 hinges on PS5’s continued success and how much Sony invests in exclusive VR content. If PS5 sales keep booming (they are) and Sony bankrolls a few more killer VR games, PSVR2 could slowly pick up steam and perhaps reach 5+ million units in a few years. That would enlarge the pool of potential customers for devs. Sony has also hinted at hybrid games (titles that have both flat and VR modes, like Resident Evil 8 or Gran Turismo 7). This hybrid model could be a growth area – a developer might make a traditional game but add VR support for PSVR2 (and possibly PC VR), giving the VR platform more content without full VR-only development costs. Indie devs could consider this too: designing games that work both in VR and on a flat screen to maximize audience (though that’s a challenge). If PSVR2 underperforms, there’s a risk Sony could pull back (worst case, no PSVR3), but given they invested heavily in the tech, they’ll likely give it a few years and a strong software push (they’ve already lined up marquee titles). For now, PSVR2 looks to occupy a solid premium niche – not overtaking Quest, but offering unique high-quality experiences.

SteamVR (PC VR): Valve itself might play a wild card. There are rumors of Valve working on a new headset (codenamed “Deckard” in the community) that could be standalone or a more advanced Index. If Valve re-enters hardware with something innovative, it could reinvigorate PC VR interest. Additionally, the PC VR market, while a small slice of Steam, has shown slow growth – about 2% of Steam users have VR now​, up from ~1% a few years ago. New PC headsets from other companies (HP, Pimax, etc.) and technologies like RTX graphics cards enabling better VR visuals keep PC VR relevant for enthusiasts. For developers, SteamVR will likely remain the long-tail platform – even if initial sales happen more on Quest or PSVR, Steam can keep selling your game to VR newcomers years down the line. Also, PC VR is where a lot of innovation in control schemes (e.g. full-body tracking, custom peripherals) happens; if your game targets those, PC is the place. A trend in PC space is modding and open-source – e.g. people adding VR mods to non-VR games. Valve’s embrace of OpenXR ensures that if AR glasses or new XR devices come to PC, they can run SteamVR content, potentially expanding the user base beyond traditional headsets.

Pico and Others: Pico’s future is tied to ByteDance’s commitment. So far, ByteDance seems serious about competing with Meta in VR. We might see a Pico 5 or further global expansion (perhaps entering the US if relations warm or they find a strategy to do so). If Pico can leverage TikTok for integrated VR experiences or marketing (imagine watching a TikTok about a game and instantly launching a lite VR demo on your Pico headset), they have unique cross-media muscle. For developers, Pico’s growth could mean another Quest-sized marketplace in the long term, which is positive – more competition among stores could lead to better revenue terms or support. Outside of Pico, there’s also Apple’s Vision Pro on the horizon. Apple’s device (launching in 2024) is more AR/MR focused and extremely high-end (priced around $3000), so not directly a gaming console competitor yet. However, Apple entering the XR space validates the medium and could drive interest. In a few years, if Apple iterates to a more affordable headset, we might have another major platform to consider (with its own App Store, likely different content focus). Vision Pro at launch isn’t geared toward VR games (and many VR devs can’t easily afford to target it), but keep an eye on Apple – their ecosystem, while closed, could become lucrative for AR/VR content (they talked about supporting Unity on VisionOS, so ports might be feasible).

Enterprise and Niche Markets: Another trend is VR branching into enterprise and specialized uses (training, education, out-of-home entertainment). Platforms like Vive Focus (and Viveport Business) or even Quest for Business cater to those. While not directly about game sales, a VR developer might repurpose a game for enterprise training or simulation and sell through these channels. The lines between consumer and enterprise might blur with “pro” headsets like Quest Pro, Vive Focus 3, etc. This could open alternate revenue streams (e.g. licensing your game engine or framework for simulations).

Subscriptions and Cloud Gaming: We already have Viveport Infinity. Meta has not done a subscription for Quest store (aside from fitness app subscriptions individually), but it’s possible in the future they or others could explore a “Game Pass for VR” model. That could drastically change monetization models (with more emphasis on play time, similar to Infinity). Cloud gaming could also become a factor – Nvidia’s CloudXR tech allows VR streaming. If cloud VR became viable, it might render hardware differences less important (e.g. a Quest could play PC-level games via cloud). That in turn might consolidate platforms: you could sell one version of a game and users anywhere stream it. This is speculative, but something the industry is tinkering with.

In essence, developers should remain agile. Multi-platform development with an eye on emerging platforms is a smart move. The VR industry of 2025 is not the end state – new entrants (Apple, maybe others), and shifts in user preference (perhaps AR/VR hybrids) will come. However, the core platforms we discussed – Steam, Meta, Sony, Pico, HTC – all have plans and stakes in the ground that will keep them relevant for the next few years.

Conclusion

Choosing which VR platform(s) to develop for is a crucial decision that affects your game’s design, reach, and financial success. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer – each platform has its strengths. To summarize:

SteamVR (PC) – greatest freedom and cross-headset support, moderate but passionate user base, easy to self-publish but hard to stand out. Good for high-end experiences and indie experimentation. Every VR dev should consider a Steam version, if only to not miss the PC enthusiasts and to future-proof for new headsets on PC.

Meta Quest – largest active user base and sales potential as of today​, but a curated garden. If you can get on the Quest Store, it can be transformative for your studio, exposing your game to millions of players who are hungry for content. Design with standalones’ limits in mind and focus on accessible, comfort-friendly gameplay to maximize success here.

PlayStation VR2 – smaller market currently, but users who are willing to buy games and enjoy polished, console-quality content. It’s the avenue to reach console gamers and leverage the power of PS5 for VR. Harder for indies to break into, yet those who do often benefit from Sony’s ecosystem and a relatively uncrowded marketplace for VR. Especially consider PSVR2 if your game can leverage its unique features (haptics, AAA graphics) or if you secure a partnership with Sony.

Pico – the up-and-comer, particularly strong in regions outside Meta’s shadow. An open store that’s indie-friendly, with the possibility to ride ByteDance’s investment wave. Right now it’s a secondary platform – “nice to have” – but it could grow into a primary one. Porting from Quest to Pico is usually trivial, so it’s wise to plan for it and establish a relationship with Pico’s team early on.

Viveport – an additional distribution channel that can augment your revenue. It’s especially useful for reaching HTC device owners and for getting some income via the Infinity subscription model. While it won’t rival the bigger stores in raw sales, the low effort to include it makes it a worthwhile part of a multi-platform strategy, essentially free extra money for a finished game.

For indie developers, ease of access vs. potential payoff is the trade-off. Steam and Viveport give immediate access but with lower immediate payoff; Quest and PSVR2 make you work harder to get in, but the rewards (user base and revenue) can be higher once you’re there.

A prudent approach for many studios is to start where you can iterate quickly – perhaps on PC (early access on Steam is common for VR indies) – to refine the game, then secure a Quest deal or release once the game is robust, and later tackle PSVR2 if the demand is there. This way you build momentum and proof of concept (which can even help convince Meta or Sony your game is worth featuring).

Cross-platform development is highly recommended; tools and standards like OpenXR are your friends, reducing duplicated effort. Engage with each platform’s community and keep an eye on platform-specific guidelines – e.g. follow Meta’s best practices for Quest performance, Sony’s comfort rating system for PSVR, etc., to smooth the path to approval and user acceptance.

Finally, stay adaptable and informed. The VR industry is likely to evolve rapidly in the next few years, with new devices and possibly new storefronts (who knows, by 2026 we might be talking about an Apple XR Store or a Microsoft comeback). Prioritize reputable, official sources and tech media for updates on platform changes, and be ready to update your game to support new features (like eye tracking on PSVR2 or mixed reality on Quest 3) to keep it relevant. VR remains a frontier – but as this comparison shows, the landscape has started to solidify around major players. By understanding the nuances of SteamVR, Meta Quest, PSVR, Pico, and Viveport, you can make informed decisions to maximize your game’s reach and impact in the growing VR market.

Each platform offers something different, and by leveraging the right ones for your project, you’ll be in a strong position to succeed as the VR frontier expands. Sources: The analysis above integrates information from official statements and industry reports, including hardware statistics (e.g. Steam Hardware Survey data​, Quest sales figures​, PSVR2 unit estimates​, and expert commentary on marketplace dynamics. Notable references include financial insights into Quest’s content ecosystem (over $2B in revenue​) and developers’ perspectives on Meta’s commission versus Apple​. HTC’s Viveport announcements provided details on their 2024 developer revenue boost to 90%​. Pico’s open approach and developer funding were highlighted by XR analysts noting Pico’s non-walled-garden philosophy and $12M incentive program​. These sources collectively paint the picture of how each platform stands in 2025 for game developers entering the VR space.