not much until we get proper DisplayPort connection... SnapDragonXR2gen2 is an improvement over gen1 but its still a mobile SOC and absolutely stone age compared to high-end PC GPUs can we talk about that sometime?
@@bigbangerz5856 DP1.4...is dead for VR... DP2.1 are only available on AMD graphic card ...and DP2.1 vidéo controller are expensive and rare ( isn't it Pimax!?)...Pretty sure that Samsung Display won't sell their controller as they want to enter in the VR market USB-C is better, You can have streaming but limited if you use, as you said a poor chipset as XR2.. or direct vidéo with a controller cause it has display port Virtual mode...and has a good bandwidth in 3.2/4 version...( Forget USB 3.0) But they don't use it because they want to sell apps...and autonomous game ( with the bad streaming decoding capacity of XR2...) and DP... Always means SteamVr....so no money for them. So stop to dream about DP.... Even Pimax will use massive compression on their next Super headset...cause they're unable to buy a DP2.1 controller
During the Display week, every builder of screen talked about >4K display, Micro led, Oled, etc under 500$ Remember that a VR device is just 2 screen, few bad cam.., a poor XR chipset...and few lens...nothing more...1500€ is simply too much VR brand as Meta prefer cheap solution to increase their profit. Don't expect from Meta of improving the tech...
@@bigbangerz5856 I doubt that Meta will ever make a new headset with a wired DP connection. While there are still a few drawbacks with wireless PCVR (Air Link or Virtual desktop), the freedom of wireless PCVR is soooo nice. Hopefully their next gen headsets will include better/faster chips and wifi compatibility for closer to wired DP results. I also still use my official Meta Link cable for complex flight sims like msfs2020. Connected to my z790mb's usb3.2 gen2 type-c port my QPro/rtx4090 at 650mbps encoding bitrate produces very good, artifact-free results that are very DP-like imho. However, for me, there is about a 10% fps performance loss due to gpu encoding compared to my DP wire Vive Pro1. For msfs2020 I get around this by running my QPro at 80Hz refresh rate, compared to 90Hz with my VP1. The blacks/contrast while night flying are still not as good as my VP1's beautiful AMOLED screens but with local dimming the QPro is pretty darn close. Even my Q3 is pretty good in that regard. Main problem with my VP1 is that even with a ton of super sampling, the SDE is still a bit too high due to its 1600x1400 pentile screens. Cockpit clarity is still much better with both my QPro and Q3. While wired with Link gets me great PCVR results with complex games/sims, I still prefer to play most games wireless with Air Link or Virtual Desktop. Hopefully the next gen Meta headsets with wifi7 will make it possible for me to get rid of my Link cable. Time will tell I guess. Cheers.
@@Tyrielwood it doesn’t matter Meta or not. High quality product will always be worth it for lots of people. There is no one-for-all headset without compromise. Just make three of them each with its own niche
I'd spend up to $1K USD on a Meta headset for the following upgrades: OLED screen, wider FOV, at least 25% higher resolution, eye tracking and next-gen SOC. However, that would be a tough pricepoint to pull for all that tech but if they make that, I'd buy it day 1.
For what games you wa t that way higher resolution. There aren't any new triple A games in like 4 ever. And you want qled not oled. Gave you seen the screens is a psvr2 no you want qled
I don’t think that price point is impossible except for the fact it could be lower volume. Although I think the amount of people willing to pay $1K or somewhat more for a headset with all those features (plus display port) is MUCH higher than it was 5-10 years ago. Personally I’d pay up to $1,250 for the same resolution but wider FOV, display port, multiple USB ports, OLED, eye tracking is optional but nice to have, etc.
Meta can sell me the Quest Pro 2 without the external compute & power bank, and I’ll plug it directly into my computer for the ultimate PCVR experience like the founder of Oculus intended 👍
Meta doesn't need to compete with apples, let apples enjoy their fish eggs, you keep doing what you are doing , meta needs to keep their eyes on Pico which actually headed in the right direction leg tracking is more attractive than better lenses right now. Who cares about someone playing with butterflies on the vision pro, that is nice and all, but that is not what people want kicking soccer balls is more fun than playing with butterflies.
@@nagyFerko Nobody does. That's exactly why nobody wants or needs it. It's a luxury big screen cinema in the business class during flights right now from my experience.
@lexmanbrother1239 Soccer - balls. Right. Nice staw grasping lol. I mean just look at all the successful games using limb tracking with the trackers we already have. Oh right, nobody ever cared nor would it even work. I can't wait for the first pet or toddler to get kicked to heaven from some freak having to kick the shit outta a virtual ball - sadly it was the skull of something alive in the real world. Or the broken shins because oopsy, there was a desk and sadly your response time to guardian wasn't as on point as the stinging pain when your shin bone shattered. So please don't make this shit up... Leg tracking is for weebs only. Nobody on earth needs it nor wants it and those who do can just get a tracker. Nobody in engineering needs it. Nobody in sim needs it. Nobody in normal games needs it. It's purely in demand for weird fox tail dancing in vr chat and let's hope that is NOT what our future generations hope to be successfully making a living on.
I would say the lenses was a good move. But leg tracking if definitely a spot on addition!! 1) Next direction I would say in my opinion is wider/bigger fov. 2) More powerful chip with more Ram. 3) And another 30% boost to resolution. 4) Maybe a new screen.
The reason why the Quest 2 did so well was because it was $300... Everybody could afford it....survey showed that the majority of players owned quest 2, which paved the way for them to push METAVERSE Moving away from that price point, will only gate away what ever community they have gained from the quest 2
@@skscotchThis would be cool for us consumers, but developers would hate this because they’d need 3 versions of each app graphically or whatever the differences are.
I ran into you once in VR. You were showing your friend "From Other Suns". So happy to see your channel going well, and even more so to know that you'll be attending live events for coverage. You deserve so much, props to you for putting yourself out there and grabbing it! Cheers, wishing you continued success!
I really hope the quest 4 gets a q-led LCD with local dimming native display port and eye tracking. Hopes and dreams lol I would pay $700-$750 CDN for that the quest 3 is $649 CDN
media websites are so sensationalist, i saw some news the other day and they were framing it as if Meta had given up on VR as a concept, and i was thinking "wtf?? this doesnt make any sense, they are doing good progress and have an ecosystem and are basically leading on the VR industry, why tf would they do that???" obviously it turns out they werent
So many of us just want regular mid grade headset with steamvr tracking and eye/facial tracking i don't know who wants all that mixed reality stuff i bet its minority. Think its ultimately up to Valve they seem to know what customers want the most just with ridiculous timelines.
Mixed reality is actually pretty cool for watching movies or social media because you don’t feel isolated. One of problem’s people have with VR is that they feel isolated and they don’t know or can’t see what’s going on around them them. I honestly don’t play a lot of mixed reality games but I can see what their long-term goals are with MR and that’s to constantly keep improving the technology to wear eventually, they can fit it into something like the Meta Ray bands. Which would be years down the road, but you have to start somewhere to improve that technology and makes it more affordable as well. Mixed reality will also be huge for productivity in a lot of industries. I’m a PM for a large Contractor and being able to see three dimensional blueprints in real time onprojects like actually being able to see conduit ran before it’s ran being able to see fire protection systems installed before they are actually installed, etc. would eliminate so many conflicting layouts.
@@steffendetricki think Mixed Reality will be the future. Only limited for gaming, but the evryday stuff we do on our phones, pcs, etc are way better in Mixed Reality
Me trying to find my glasses with Quest 2 passthrough: can't actually tell black glasses apart from brown bed 😢 getting attachable lenses kind of costs less than new glasses here.
I'm a PCVR user so processing power doesn't matter too much for me unless it starts to bottleneck the sensors. So if it has a good resolution with micro-OLED screens, improved face/eye tracking and WIFI 6/7 it's already good enough for me.
Give me a quest 3 with eye tracking for os navigation, 16gb ram for multitasking, streaming apps, and it would be perfect. A snapdragon 8 gen 3 based SOC or better would be the icing on the cake.
Imagine having the Snapdragon X Elite Plus on these bad boys. New laptops have 'em. No reason whatsoever for headsets to adopt them. We'll see in 2 years.
I think they should only produce one headset which have the possibility to upgrade. Entry 300-500 Upgrade Display 500-700 Upgrade Display 700-900 So many people could find the entry in vr easy. And if they want they can upgrade their headset. So you can spend money step by step and have not spend one big price at once.
Just based in the success of the Meta Quest 2, and the reasonable success of the Quest 3, it's pretty well established that the $500 mark is the baseline. People are willing to pay to experience something new and fresh, if it doesn't FEEL like a massive investment. Most still see VR/AR as a 'toy', which in its current state it still is to some extent. And to your points, Apple has helped pushed those boundaries out a bit - even as pricey, experience limited and clunky/heavy as the Vision Pro is. They provided a 'vision' of what the user-experience could be, and Meta responded by bringing fresh updates to the Horizons OS that aligns closer to the Vision OS, which is VERY exciting.
Quest 3 is almost perfect. The only thing that can sell new Quest to me is local dimming + 130 or higher fov. I would pay under 1000 for that. If it has usb-c DisplayPort alt mode it's an insta buy for whatever price/specs. And by the way NO controllers NO buy no matter the features/price.
The Q Pro with the Globular Headstrap is amazing. it's gonna take a lot for me to consider a different headset after this one. It has face tracking, open design, wireless, auto IPD, high FOV with lenses moved up close, and it feels light and comfortable. I'm even considering buying a second one in case this one breaks.
I’m willing to pay up to $3000 for a really good VR headset regardless of manufacturer. Meta could make the same hardware as AVP just for $2000 and it’d already be great
@@Shadow_banned_by_TH-cam fair enough mate, I am the same. I was just saying with respect to mass adoption. I currently have the Vision Pro and Q3. I tried the old Crystal headset for PCVR but the build quality was so bad. I think they should release two headsets I.e Quest Pro and Quest Ultra, one with slightly lower specs and one that has everything so that we can choose. This headset would be perfect for me if it ever got released obviously it cold get better as time goes on Resolution 3500x3500 Display : Oled with 100% DCi-P3 FOV degree : 150h and 120v Lens tech: Pancake or something with 100% sweet spot and no distortion Type: PCVR via display port and I would love to have a stand alone wireless aspect as well Weight: Sub 500g and well constructed The headset should also be easy to take apart like the Vision Pro hands instead of the Quest Pro ones so that we can use third party straps if needed. Hopefully the technology improves to the point we’re display port and wireless connection quality will be the same
How meta would make a headset with the same hardware as the Vision Pro? Meta has no access to Apple Soc. the best they have is the currently best Xd chip from snapdragon. Which is still weaker than the current best snapdragon for phones. But yeah, meta could definitely sell a Vision Pro like headset, even for 500usd. Since most of the revenue is came from the sold user data. But it would be too suspicious for too many people.
"I’m willing to pay up to $3000 for a really good VR headse" - straight off the bat the Quest Pro 2 and the Quest Pro were not designed to be VR headsets. These are more like Hololens / AVP AR headsets - something for productivity but of course can also accomodate total immersion if required. Just don't expect miracles - you'll get better VR from something like a Pimax Super. I have a feeling what folks require as a top end VR solution in the future won't come from Mata unless they start a new line.
@@paulbellino5330 Wireless is the future and DP1.4...is dead for VR... DP2.1 are only available on AMD graphic card ...and DP2.1 vidéo controller are expensive and rare ( isn't it Pimax!?)...Pretty sure that Samsung Display won't sell their controller as they want to enter in the VR market USB-C is better, You can have streaming but limited if you use, as you said a poor chipset as XR2.. or direct vidéo with a controller cause it has display port Virtual mode...and has a good bandwidth in 3.2/4 version...( Forget USB 3.0) But they don't use it because they want to sell apps...and autonomous game ( with the bad streaming decoding capacity of XR2...) and DP... Always means SteamVr....so no money for them. So stop to dream about DP.... Even Pimax will use massive compression on their next Super headset...cause they're unable to buy a DP2.1 controller
@@sephiroth4543Meta is already looked at as a sinking ship. They need price points people are going to be attracted to. It's what got people's attention in the first place.
I have the Quest 3 and love it so far, got it 1 month after release. What I would want from a pro headset (because if I am to leave the Q3, the new headset has to be a proper step up); -50% more pixels (I can see the pixels of the Q3 in bright scenes) -Oled screen -A full proper type C port (better charging, and have displayport capability as well) -Must alloy for third party elite straps (or at the least have a way to use bigger battery on it) -FULL face tracking at the least (already existed on the original, but also some body tracking as well) -And better video passthrough (quest 3 is good, but it can be much better) -Expandable storage would be great (or at least have a decent amount of onboard storage 1tb) -Price no more than 1k (I think going above this would cause people to fall back to the Q3 But honestly, I think Meta is going to hold off and see what other companies do, we got big players coming into the VR space like Asus and Lenovo. These companies may go all out and it would be in Meta best interest to at least have a handle on the OS that runs these headsets (this would keep Meta relevant for longer even if their hardware isn't the main seller). EDIT: I do think that the full type C is important as the headset will be limited on performance, but a beefy PC would really elevate things.
These chipset manufacturers are purposely giving half ass chips. Only 50% performance? Seriously? Need more competition in those space because they are purposely milking the technology.
The biggest issue with Meta products is Meta, rather than the products themselves. Meta's well-known primary revenue source - selling user data - is the primary reason I have still not purchased a Meta headset. I'd gladly purchase a headset that beats or meets the functionality from a company that simply makes money by selling a good product.
$1000 USD is a fine benchmark cap for enthusiast grade HMD package, but I DO mean a Package. Controllers, a competent level of on-board standalone compute even if it's PCVR-centric, and controllers that are at least SOMETHING more comprehensive than we have today. I never regretted my Index purchase, and still use it, even though it's increasingly rivaled by my Q3 over Virtual Desktop. A 5 year career no other HMD matches.
For right now I will stay with the Quest 3 for my VR gaming. I will be interested in what the Quest 4 will bring to the table far as specifications which may come out in 2026, but is also not guaranteed that this product will come out. Pretty sure by that time more and more great VR products will surface with newer features. Time shall Tell. Thanks for the video. Take care.
I was planning to pay 1500 for the meta pro 2 and I already have the quest 3. Pro 2 was going to be my next headset replacement. Instead whole new headset, meta should make enhancement upgrade to quest 3 to be like pro such as attaching an eye tracking to meta quest 3. By the time of pro 2, ppl meta quest 3 could be like it or ppl could upgrade to whole new headset if they want if has OLED.
I don't think it has anything to do with being willing to pay less for Meta products. I think it's just that you automatically compare it to the main Meta headset, med which is the Quest 3. And unless any new headset isn't significantly better, the price has to be relative to that. Apple doesn't have that problem as everything they sell costs a kidney and a half.
Meta is the reason we don’t really saw many vr headset competitors. It’s impossible to make a headset that cheap without the user data selling network meta has. Companies like HTC can’t really get enough money for your data, to be able to sell headsets that low of a price
Puffin sounds promising, just hope it comes with OLED screens? 3 weeks is not so long to wait. If they could do something equivalent to a Beyond with a computing puck/battery pack for 1K that would be freakin amazing. Pico4ultra will be DOA if Meta does? 1500 would be fine if it didn't come with compromises like the Pro did.
Need Face and eye tracking and native body tracking modules that can be used standalone or with PCVR, Meta needs to get a Pro class headset up and running with enthusiast level features, and enthusiast level comfort. That would be worth a 1k price point. If they can get the price point down below that as well, they would have an absolute banger on their hands and if they focus on their store, they can sell at a thinner margine and recoup the losses through the store. But they have to make sure the base models storage is reasonable enough. No more 128GB headsets now that the performance is getting better and games are taking up more space they need to get that base storage up to compensate.
I will get a meta device if they support Displayport once again. no matter if real DP or DP over usb C. overall, iam still waiting for "that" 2560 - 2880 pixel headset, with eyetracking, pancake or apspheric lenses, lightweight, (below 500grams) dp cable bound, with oled and lighthouse and must be adjustable in terms of ipd
ONLY reason I got a Quest Pro vs a Quest 3 is the Foveated rendering. There's such a massive difference when it comes to high graphic settings for flight sim games in PCVR. I was willing to pay up to $2000 if the QuestP2 came with the "rumored" varifocal lenses.
1500€ would be fine for, in priority order: good lenses, 2500x2500 or higher resolution, eye tracking, uncompressed display port connection, good passthrough, hand tracking, and closer to 200g than 500g.
wish there were stuff to do in vr. I've kinda been pushed out of the medium by military extraction shooters and roguelikes. there's nothing to do in VR for a normal gamer like me.
The fact that if the codename for the Quest Pro 2 really is in Spanish, it'd be wrong because the correct way is "La Joya" which translates to "The Jewel", unless according to a Google search it's a reference to the California district of La Jolla, which tbh is more likely now that I think about it..
Quest 3 deliberately prevents us from using passthrough with headset tracking turned off which would be like a floating tablet screen while you walk around. Absolutely no reason to do that.
It’s because of how the pass trough works. They use the tracking for correcting the pass trough image to be spatially correct. If they made it from a different point, it could work, but they started from the wrong way.
The only thing that could move me to buy a 1k + HMD is when it's best in class and has absolutely no vendor lock-in. I want to own my device especially if it cost ungodly amounts of legal tender...
I was actually excited for the quest pro 2. I use the quest pro for face and eye tracking (and the pancake lenses) I think the only thing I'd change about it is the specs (resolution, maybe some native hand tracking controllers, better AR quality) for the price. Maybe the quest pro 2 having some unique features. I dont think meta should try to compete with the vision pro (kind of a flop imo) Otherwise, meta just needs to innovate more in VR, less in AR. Most people, most of the time is spent in games. AR is really just a tech demo at this phase of VR.
VR doesn't make money. Never has, and probably never will. AR going mainstream is literally the ONLY WAY Meta's XR investments actually bare fruit. 🤷 VR gamers should be GLAD for AR because otherwise VR investment + R&D literally do not happen AT ALL! Tunnel-visioned smooth brains. 🤦😑
@@Empyreusal Quest 2 didn't make money dingus. 🤦😑 Meta Reality Labs (previously Oculus) has lost BILLIONS every single quarter they've been a company. R&D for the Quest 2 MASSIVELY outweighed it's revenue, which didn't even matter anyways as Quest 2 was SOLD AT A LOSS up until just recently. 🤷 If Quest 2 had launched at a money making price (≈$600-$700) nobody would have bought it. End of story.
Meta won't release a "puck" style headset with Quest 3 similar power ever. It's just not possible. Even your phone would overheat and that isn't even VR capable. I can't believe how media spreads this easy to debunk rumor.
@@t3nka thanks for the feedback, I'm trying to figure out what happened, as I didn't change anything in the audio department, might be the cable getting too close to something, I'll move things around and hopefully it will get better :) the white noise might be the fan or AC tho... It's incredibly hot lately
1000 pounds would need to have much better work integration. High quality virtual office environments and customisable multi-screens with great resolution would make me buy one.
For Meta products I want under $1K. Then depending on what I spent feeds into how long I'll keep it before replacing it. So a $500 I'd keep for at least 2 years then replace. But one for $750 (better be amazing) I'd want 3+ years of use out of it. Technically Apple's VP was beautiful and cutting edge (I went for a demo) but I just didn't see many apps or use for it. I mean, no controllers?! So for me my Quest 3 was much better even with a lower resolution.
I would spend 1500 for a stand alone PCVR Headset that runs windows. Couldn't justify the purchase above 2000 at any time of the year other than tax season.
I'm willing to spend 1500$ on a modular VR Headset where I can swap out the OLED screen after burn in and connect new batteries (wired and separate from the device similar to apple vision pro) and decide to run it from the onboard Systems or simply use it as screen for my pc or Android mobile Device preferably all the computer and memory are separate as well similar to the battery of the apple vision pro. No idea if swappable camera's would be possible but if so hell Yeah!. But if it's not a modular device that can truly be connected to multiple devices and swappable parts to extend the life of them there is no point dumping more than 400 - 600$ on a standalone device like that.
Just give me a displayport and an OLED screen with decent optics and eye-tracking. The computing should be located in a puc that could potentially be upgraded or replaced with my desktop computer. I would pay around 1500 dollars and would appreciate the option to not buy the puc. I prefer PC VR.
I am willing to spend 2000€ on a Meta product, but ONLY if it is a perfect headset with 50-60 PPD, displayport, comfortable, premium materials and it is something that makes me happy so I don't have to think into an upgrade in the next 5 years. If that is the case, I will spend 2000€ more than happy to do it.
@@Tyrielwood is windows not going to continue with VR ? I understand steam vr will lose windows mixed reality also.. just don't update 24h2 ? what platform would you suggest? meta . apple , play station uses windows mixed reality. with adapter? thank you
Im not buying any of the new headsets because i want eye and face tracking with my next headsets. Current ones is too low screen resolution, exept the Pico 4 pro. But their face tracking is not very good. So im basicly just waiting for a new VRHeadset with 2160x2160 screen resolution or above Has to have eye and face tracking. And it needs to be wireless. Price wise im willing to pay above 1000 Dollars if it has all these things and decently. But anything above 1400 Dollars is too much. Im holding off until such a headset arrives. Until then i stick with my normal Pico 4. Im just sad that nearly no company makes the eye and facetracking headsets. Even eye tracking alone is often not made or they are pulled off very quickly. I had high hopes for the Pico 4 Ultra to have eye and face tracking like their pro variant that they sadly only released in China.
Im sorry, but I'm never buying another headset unless it has eye tracking, the quest 2 is perfect for what it is, when I need power I hook it to my pc. The pass thru is intriguing, but im trying to escape from reality, bringing reality into my virtual world seems like a slight step back 😅 even if it seems cool I would never use it enough.
I wish all the Karens out there who are constantly whining about not getting EVERYTHING they want in a VR headset--basically for free--would sit down and take a "Grow-Up" pill. The notion that these companies are building VR headsets out of thin air for nothing is not only fallacious, but ridiculous. After all, even if Meta, et. al., did use Wizards to build their headsets, they'd have to pay them. At which point, they would pass those costs on to the consumer, because they aren't building VR headsets and games as a hobby. The Meta Quest Pro wasn't terrible because the price was too high, it was terrible because the specs, relative to the price, were awful. Had it had better specs and fewer problems, the people who could have afforded it would have thrown their money down for it without a second thought... ...And the Karens would still be whining about how they should've been able to get it for a $1000 under what it actually cost to build it.
mofos aint trying to spend 3k on a headset from apple either check the sales. VR should be from around 400 for good 600 for great and up to about 2k for enthusiast. What I would like is oled to come back give me a quest 4 oled and I think that checks just about every box and would dominate and by that time we should get eyetracking with it at around 500 to 600 im all in.
Why would any of us invest thousands of dollars into a new pro headset considering the old pro headset is barely 2 years old and it's already not supported anymore?
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
How much is too much for meta?
(Sorry for the late upload but TH-cam didn't want to work today)
not much until we get proper DisplayPort connection... SnapDragonXR2gen2 is an improvement over gen1 but its still a mobile SOC and absolutely stone age compared to high-end PC GPUs can we talk about that sometime?
@@bigbangerz5856
DP1.4...is dead for VR...
DP2.1 are only available on AMD graphic card ...and DP2.1 vidéo controller are expensive and rare ( isn't it Pimax!?)...Pretty sure that Samsung Display won't sell their controller as they want to enter in the VR market
USB-C is better, You can have streaming but limited if you use, as you said a poor chipset as XR2.. or direct vidéo with a controller cause it has display port Virtual mode...and has a good bandwidth in 3.2/4 version...( Forget USB 3.0)
But they don't use it because they want to sell apps...and autonomous game ( with the bad streaming decoding capacity of XR2...) and DP... Always means SteamVr....so no money for them.
So stop to dream about DP....
Even Pimax will use massive compression on their next Super headset...cause they're unable to buy a DP2.1 controller
During the Display week, every builder of screen talked about >4K display, Micro led, Oled, etc under 500$
Remember that a VR device is just 2 screen, few bad cam.., a poor XR chipset...and few lens...nothing more...1500€ is simply too much
VR brand as Meta prefer cheap solution to increase their profit. Don't expect from Meta of improving the tech...
@@bigbangerz5856 I doubt that Meta will ever make a new headset with a wired DP connection. While there are still a few drawbacks with wireless PCVR (Air Link or Virtual desktop), the freedom of wireless PCVR is soooo nice. Hopefully their next gen headsets will include better/faster chips and wifi compatibility for closer to wired DP results.
I also still use my official Meta Link cable for complex flight sims like msfs2020. Connected to my z790mb's usb3.2 gen2 type-c port my QPro/rtx4090 at 650mbps encoding bitrate produces very good, artifact-free results that are very DP-like imho. However, for me, there is about a 10% fps performance loss due to gpu encoding compared to my DP wire Vive Pro1. For msfs2020 I get around this by running my QPro at 80Hz refresh rate, compared to 90Hz with my VP1. The blacks/contrast while night flying are still not as good as my VP1's beautiful AMOLED screens but with local dimming the QPro is pretty darn close. Even my Q3 is pretty good in that regard. Main problem with my VP1 is that even with a ton of super sampling, the SDE is still a bit too high due to its 1600x1400 pentile screens. Cockpit clarity is still much better with both my QPro and Q3. While wired with Link gets me great PCVR results with complex games/sims, I still prefer to play most games wireless with Air Link or Virtual Desktop. Hopefully the next gen Meta headsets with wifi7 will make it possible for me to get rid of my Link cable. Time will tell I guess. Cheers.
@@Tyrielwood it doesn’t matter Meta or not. High quality product will always be worth it for lots of people. There is no one-for-all headset without compromise. Just make three of them each with its own niche
I'd spend up to $1K USD on a Meta headset for the following upgrades: OLED screen, wider FOV, at least 25% higher resolution, eye tracking and next-gen SOC. However, that would be a tough pricepoint to pull for all that tech but if they make that, I'd buy it day 1.
M4😅
For what games you wa t that way higher resolution. There aren't any new triple A games in like 4 ever. And you want qled not oled. Gave you seen the screens is a psvr2 no you want qled
@@spidermonkeynr1 qled is a type of oled.
I don’t think that price point is impossible except for the fact it could be lower volume. Although I think the amount of people willing to pay $1K or somewhat more for a headset with all those features (plus display port) is MUCH higher than it was 5-10 years ago.
Personally I’d pay up to $1,250 for the same resolution but wider FOV, display port, multiple USB ports, OLED, eye tracking is optional but nice to have, etc.
That would cost at least 1k to even manufacture.
Meta can sell me the Quest Pro 2 without the external compute & power bank, and I’ll plug it directly into my computer for the ultimate PCVR experience like the founder of Oculus intended 👍
Meta doesn't need to compete with apples, let apples enjoy their fish eggs, you keep doing what you are doing , meta needs to keep their eyes on Pico which actually headed in the right direction leg tracking is more attractive than better lenses right now. Who cares about someone playing with butterflies on the vision pro, that is nice and all, but that is not what people want kicking soccer balls is more fun than playing with butterflies.
You clearly don’t understand what’s good in the Vision Pro.
@@nagyFerko Nobody does. That's exactly why nobody wants or needs it. It's a luxury big screen cinema in the business class during flights right now from my experience.
@lexmanbrother1239 Soccer - balls. Right. Nice staw grasping lol. I mean just look at all the successful games using limb tracking with the trackers we already have. Oh right, nobody ever cared nor would it even work.
I can't wait for the first pet or toddler to get kicked to heaven from some freak having to kick the shit outta a virtual ball - sadly it was the skull of something alive in the real world.
Or the broken shins because oopsy, there was a desk and sadly your response time to guardian wasn't as on point as the stinging pain when your shin bone shattered.
So please don't make this shit up... Leg tracking is for weebs only.
Nobody on earth needs it nor wants it and those who do can just get a tracker.
Nobody in engineering needs it. Nobody in sim needs it. Nobody in normal games needs it. It's purely in demand for weird fox tail dancing in vr chat and let's hope that is NOT what our future generations hope to be successfully making a living on.
I would say the lenses was a good move. But leg tracking if definitely a spot on addition!!
1) Next direction I would say in my opinion is wider/bigger fov.
2) More powerful chip with more Ram.
3) And another 30% boost to resolution.
4) Maybe a new screen.
The reason why the Quest 2 did so well was because it was $300... Everybody could afford it....survey showed that the majority of players owned quest 2, which paved the way for them to push METAVERSE
Moving away from that price point, will only gate away what ever community they have gained from the quest 2
Quest 3s is planned for release. But I rather get regular Quest 3 instead just because I hate 3 positionals ipd adjustment like on Quest 2
They should do tiers, three options, £250, £500 and £1000 them everyone has a choice.
@@skscotchThis would be cool for us consumers, but developers would hate this because they’d need 3 versions of each app graphically or whatever the differences are.
Paid 250 for the 64Gb version in `21 when they where phased out. Crazy good value.
I ran into you once in VR. You were showing your friend "From Other Suns". So happy to see your channel going well, and even more so to know that you'll be attending live events for coverage. You deserve so much, props to you for putting yourself out there and grabbing it! Cheers, wishing you continued success!
I really hope the quest 4 gets a q-led LCD with local dimming native display port and eye tracking.
Hopes and dreams lol
I would pay $700-$750 CDN for that the quest 3 is $649 CDN
nah it should atleast have face tracking minimum
media websites are so sensationalist, i saw some news the other day and they were framing it as if Meta had given up on VR as a concept, and i was thinking "wtf?? this doesnt make any sense, they are doing good progress and have an ecosystem and are basically leading on the VR industry, why tf would they do that???" obviously it turns out they werent
So many of us just want regular mid grade headset with steamvr tracking and eye/facial tracking i don't know who wants all that mixed reality stuff i bet its minority. Think its ultimately up to Valve they seem to know what customers want the most just with ridiculous timelines.
Mixed reality is actually pretty cool for watching movies or social media because you don’t feel isolated. One of problem’s people have with VR is that they feel isolated and they don’t know or can’t see what’s going on around them them. I honestly don’t play a lot of mixed reality games but I can see what their long-term goals are with MR and that’s to constantly keep improving the technology to wear eventually, they can fit it into something like the Meta Ray bands. Which would be years down the road, but you have to start somewhere to improve that technology and makes it more affordable as well. Mixed reality will also be huge for productivity in a lot of industries. I’m a PM for a large Contractor and being able to see three dimensional blueprints in real time onprojects like actually being able to see conduit ran before it’s ran being able to see fire protection systems installed before they are actually installed, etc. would eliminate so many conflicting layouts.
@@steffendetricki think Mixed Reality will be the future. Only limited for gaming, but the evryday stuff we do on our phones, pcs, etc are way better in Mixed Reality
Me trying to find my glasses with Quest 2 passthrough: can't actually tell black glasses apart from brown bed 😢 getting attachable lenses kind of costs less than new glasses here.
I'm a PCVR user so processing power doesn't matter too much for me unless it starts to bottleneck the sensors. So if it has a good resolution with micro-OLED screens, improved face/eye tracking and WIFI 6/7 it's already good enough for me.
And it should support direct display port feed via usb c without any compression for PC vr users for productivity and gaming.
Hey any suggestions for a great vr for pc budget not an issue
Replaceable batteries, internal cooling/anti fog fan, better integration with the phone/laptop. With next SoC, at least $1000.00 for me
Give me a quest 3 with eye tracking for os navigation, 16gb ram for multitasking, streaming apps, and it would be perfect. A snapdragon 8 gen 3 based SOC or better would be the icing on the cake.
Imagine having the Snapdragon X Elite Plus on these bad boys. New laptops have 'em. No reason whatsoever for headsets to adopt them. We'll see in 2 years.
I think they should only produce one headset which have the possibility to upgrade.
Entry 300-500
Upgrade Display 500-700
Upgrade Display 700-900
So many people could find the entry in vr easy. And if they want they can upgrade their headset. So you can spend money step by step and have not spend one big price at once.
dawg what is up with your microphone
Just based in the success of the Meta Quest 2, and the reasonable success of the Quest 3, it's pretty well established that the $500 mark is the baseline. People are willing to pay to experience something new and fresh, if it doesn't FEEL like a massive investment. Most still see VR/AR as a 'toy', which in its current state it still is to some extent. And to your points, Apple has helped pushed those boundaries out a bit - even as pricey, experience limited and clunky/heavy as the Vision Pro is. They provided a 'vision' of what the user-experience could be, and Meta responded by bringing fresh updates to the Horizons OS that aligns closer to the Vision OS, which is VERY exciting.
Quest 3 is almost perfect. The only thing that can sell new Quest to me is local dimming + 130 or higher fov. I would pay under 1000 for that. If it has usb-c DisplayPort alt mode it's an insta buy for whatever price/specs. And by the way NO controllers NO buy no matter the features/price.
I picked up a quest pro just for the eye and face tracking. If they had a Q3 with the same sensors I would have gotten that instead.
The Q Pro with the Globular Headstrap is amazing. it's gonna take a lot for me to consider a different headset after this one. It has face tracking, open design, wireless, auto IPD, high FOV with lenses moved up close, and it feels light and comfortable. I'm even considering buying a second one in case this one breaks.
I’m willing to pay up to $3000 for a really good VR headset regardless of manufacturer. Meta could make the same hardware as AVP just for $2000 and it’d already be great
I think 3k is a bit too much unless it’s the greatest header ever. I would say £2500 and under is a bit better.
@@sephiroth4543 I’m spending half of my time awake in VR so it’s a must for me
@@Shadow_banned_by_TH-cam fair enough mate, I am the same. I was just saying with respect to mass adoption. I currently have the Vision Pro and Q3. I tried the old Crystal headset for PCVR but the build quality was so bad.
I think they should release two headsets I.e Quest Pro and Quest Ultra, one with slightly lower specs and one that has everything so that we can choose.
This headset would be perfect for me if it ever got released obviously it cold get better as time goes on
Resolution 3500x3500
Display : Oled with 100% DCi-P3
FOV degree : 150h and 120v
Lens tech: Pancake or something with 100% sweet spot and no distortion
Type: PCVR via display port and I would love to have a stand alone wireless aspect as well
Weight: Sub 500g and well constructed
The headset should also be easy to take apart like the Vision Pro hands instead of the Quest Pro ones so that we can use third party straps if needed.
Hopefully the technology improves to the point we’re display port and wireless connection quality will be the same
How meta would make a headset with the same hardware as the Vision Pro? Meta has no access to Apple Soc. the best they have is the currently best Xd chip from snapdragon. Which is still weaker than the current best snapdragon for phones. But yeah, meta could definitely sell a Vision Pro like headset, even for 500usd. Since most of the revenue is came from the sold user data. But it would be too suspicious for too many people.
"I’m willing to pay up to $3000 for a really good VR headse" - straight off the bat the Quest Pro 2 and the Quest Pro were not designed to be VR headsets. These are more like Hololens / AVP AR headsets - something for productivity but of course can also accomodate total immersion if required. Just don't expect miracles - you'll get better VR from something like a Pimax Super. I have a feeling what folks require as a top end VR solution in the future won't come from Mata unless they start a new line.
price has to be under $1000 but $500 is the new target
1000 dollars for ultra wide FOV, Mini OED Standalone that connects directly to a Display port with pancake lenses. Is this too much to ask for?????
@@paulbellino5330 Wireless is the future and DP1.4...is dead for VR...
DP2.1 are only available on AMD graphic card ...and DP2.1 vidéo controller are expensive and rare ( isn't it Pimax!?)...Pretty sure that Samsung Display won't sell their controller as they want to enter in the VR market
USB-C is better, You can have streaming but limited if you use, as you said a poor chipset as XR2.. or direct vidéo with a controller cause it has display port Virtual mode...and has a good bandwidth in 3.2/4 version...( Forget USB 3.0)
But they don't use it because they want to sell apps...and autonomous game ( with the bad streaming decoding capacity of XR2...) and DP... Always means SteamVr....so no money for them.
So stop to dream about DP....
Even Pimax will use massive compression on their next Super headset...cause they're unable to buy a DP2.1 controller
Good joke, under £2000 is more reasonable if it has wide FOV, more tech, Oled etc
@@sephiroth4543Meta is already looked at as a sinking ship. They need price points people are going to be attracted to. It's what got people's attention in the first place.
There's no way they are going to release a high-end headset with a $500 price tag
I have the Quest 3 and love it so far, got it 1 month after release.
What I would want from a pro headset (because if I am to leave the Q3, the new headset has to be a proper step up);
-50% more pixels (I can see the pixels of the Q3 in bright scenes)
-Oled screen
-A full proper type C port (better charging, and have displayport capability as well)
-Must alloy for third party elite straps (or at the least have a way to use bigger battery on it)
-FULL face tracking at the least (already existed on the original, but also some body tracking as well)
-And better video passthrough (quest 3 is good, but it can be much better)
-Expandable storage would be great (or at least have a decent amount of onboard storage 1tb)
-Price no more than 1k (I think going above this would cause people to fall back to the Q3
But honestly, I think Meta is going to hold off and see what other companies do, we got big players coming into the VR space like Asus and Lenovo. These companies may go all out and it would be in Meta best interest to at least have a handle on the OS that runs these headsets (this would keep Meta relevant for longer even if their hardware isn't the main seller).
EDIT: I do think that the full type C is important as the headset will be limited on performance, but a beefy PC would really elevate things.
These chipset manufacturers are purposely giving half ass chips. Only 50% performance? Seriously? Need more competition in those space because they are purposely milking the technology.
The biggest issue with Meta products is Meta, rather than the products themselves.
Meta's well-known primary revenue source - selling user data - is the primary reason I have still not purchased a Meta headset.
I'd gladly purchase a headset that beats or meets the functionality from a company that simply makes money by selling a good product.
$1000 USD is a fine benchmark cap for enthusiast grade HMD package, but I DO mean a Package. Controllers, a competent level of on-board standalone compute even if it's PCVR-centric, and controllers that are at least SOMETHING more comprehensive than we have today. I never regretted my Index purchase, and still use it, even though it's increasingly rivaled by my Q3 over Virtual Desktop. A 5 year career no other HMD matches.
For right now I will stay with the Quest 3 for my VR gaming. I will be interested in what the Quest 4 will bring to the table far as specifications which may come out in 2026, but is also not guaranteed that this product will come out.
Pretty sure by that time more and more great VR products will surface with newer features.
Time shall Tell. Thanks for the video. Take care.
I was planning to pay 1500 for the meta pro 2 and I already have the quest 3. Pro 2 was going to be my next headset replacement. Instead whole new headset, meta should make enhancement upgrade to quest 3 to be like pro such as attaching an eye tracking to meta quest 3. By the time of pro 2, ppl meta quest 3 could be like it or ppl could upgrade to whole new headset if they want if has OLED.
I don't think it has anything to do with being willing to pay less for Meta products. I think it's just that you automatically compare it to the main Meta headset, med which is the Quest 3. And unless any new headset isn't significantly better, the price has to be relative to that. Apple doesn't have that problem as everything they sell costs a kidney and a half.
Meta is the reason we don’t really saw many vr headset competitors. It’s impossible to make a headset that cheap without the user data selling network meta has. Companies like HTC can’t really get enough money for your data, to be able to sell headsets that low of a price
Im more interested a consumer version the half dome prototype that was being talked about a long while ago.
Puffin sounds promising, just hope it comes with OLED screens?
3 weeks is not so long to wait.
If they could do something equivalent to a Beyond with a computing puck/battery pack for 1K that would be freakin amazing.
Pico4ultra will be DOA if Meta does?
1500 would be fine if it didn't come with compromises like the Pro did.
Need Face and eye tracking and native body tracking modules that can be used standalone or with PCVR, Meta needs to get a Pro class headset up and running with enthusiast level features, and enthusiast level comfort. That would be worth a 1k price point. If they can get the price point down below that as well, they would have an absolute banger on their hands and if they focus on their store, they can sell at a thinner margine and recoup the losses through the store. But they have to make sure the base models storage is reasonable enough. No more 128GB headsets now that the performance is getting better and games are taking up more space they need to get that base storage up to compensate.
I will get a meta device if they support Displayport once again. no matter if real DP or DP over usb C. overall, iam still waiting for "that" 2560 - 2880 pixel headset, with eyetracking, pancake or apspheric lenses, lightweight, (below 500grams) dp cable bound, with oled and lighthouse and must be adjustable in terms of ipd
i agree, apart from lighthouse, that is exactly what i am waiting for too.
@@socks2441 best case it supports inside out and lighthouse. i have lighthouse at home and never found anything better then it
@@socks2441the lighthouse should be optional, since it’s still a superior in terms of quality, and reliability
@@nagyFerko true
Puffin isn't a Quest Pro 2... 🤦😑 It's a super small entertainment focused device like HTC's Vive Flow.
😢
Whats the difference tho… can still use for ganes…
ONLY reason I got a Quest Pro vs a Quest 3 is the Foveated rendering. There's such a massive difference when it comes to high graphic settings for flight sim games in PCVR. I was willing to pay up to $2000 if the QuestP2 came with the "rumored" varifocal lenses.
1500€ would be fine for, in priority order: good lenses, 2500x2500 or higher resolution, eye tracking, uncompressed display port connection, good passthrough, hand tracking, and closer to 200g than 500g.
wish there were stuff to do in vr. I've kinda been pushed out of the medium by military extraction shooters and roguelikes. there's nothing to do in VR for a normal gamer like me.
UEVR, Dolphin VR
I would happily pay £1000 - £2000 if it has wider FOV and old/microled etc. love my quests used every day since they fist came out. Amazing things
Waiting for Visor. Should be officially revealed this month.
The fact that if the codename for the Quest Pro 2 really is in Spanish, it'd be wrong because the correct way is "La Joya" which translates to "The Jewel", unless according to a Google search it's a reference to the California district of La Jolla, which tbh is more likely now that I think about it..
If it looks like sunglasses size and has Apple Vision specs I would pay a good amount of money
Quest 3 deliberately prevents us from using passthrough with headset tracking turned off which would be like a floating tablet screen while you walk around. Absolutely no reason to do that.
It’s because of how the pass trough works. They use the tracking for correcting the pass trough image to be spatially correct. If they made it from a different point, it could work, but they started from the wrong way.
@nagyFerko thats incorrect because you can do it from within virtual desktop just not browsing through the UI
@@warlockboyburns but it works in a different way trough the os
@@nagyFerko They could still incorporate that way of doing it but they don't.
@@warlockboyburns why would they do that? Does it bring more user data for them? No, then they don’t care
The only thing that could move me to buy a 1k + HMD is when it's best in class and has absolutely no vendor lock-in.
I want to own my device especially if it cost ungodly amounts of legal tender...
$999AU, cause a dollar more will cost me an extra $300
I was actually excited for the quest pro 2. I use the quest pro for face and eye tracking (and the pancake lenses)
I think the only thing I'd change about it is the specs (resolution, maybe some native hand tracking controllers, better AR quality) for the price. Maybe the quest pro 2 having some unique features.
I dont think meta should try to compete with the vision pro (kind of a flop imo)
Otherwise, meta just needs to innovate more in VR, less in AR. Most people, most of the time is spent in games.
AR is really just a tech demo at this phase of VR.
Ppl said that with vr “it’s just a tech demo” just let them iterate AR too bud 🤦🏻
@@tylerdurden6917 like i said, just in this phase of vr. its not as big as advertised
VR doesn't make money. Never has, and probably never will. AR going mainstream is literally the ONLY WAY Meta's XR investments actually bare fruit. 🤷 VR gamers should be GLAD for AR because otherwise VR investment + R&D literally do not happen AT ALL! Tunnel-visioned smooth brains. 🤦😑
@@Cooe. what about the quest 2? and what do we have with ar right now?
calling people dumb does not validate your opinion
@@Empyreusal Quest 2 didn't make money dingus. 🤦😑 Meta Reality Labs (previously Oculus) has lost BILLIONS every single quarter they've been a company. R&D for the Quest 2 MASSIVELY outweighed it's revenue, which didn't even matter anyways as Quest 2 was SOLD AT A LOSS up until just recently. 🤷 If Quest 2 had launched at a money making price (≈$600-$700) nobody would have bought it. End of story.
@9:01 ... I think The most I would be willing to pay is 1200 to 1500. It would have to have all the specs of the pimax 12KX though on day one.
I would have bought it for 3500$
Meta won't release a "puck" style headset with Quest 3 similar power ever. It's just not possible. Even your phone would overheat and that isn't even VR capable. I can't believe how media spreads this easy to debunk rumor.
Spettacolo.. come sempre!!👍
800 - 1k USD sounds good if they bring to us the upgrades necessary for the Q3
How much pico 4 ultra cost?
Just a heads up, I've been hearing a bit of white noise and audio artifacting in your past few videos.
@@t3nka thanks for the feedback, I'm trying to figure out what happened, as I didn't change anything in the audio department, might be the cable getting too close to something, I'll move things around and hopefully it will get better :) the white noise might be the fan or AC tho... It's incredibly hot lately
1000 pounds would need to have much better work integration. High quality virtual office environments and customisable multi-screens with great resolution would make me buy one.
Microsoft & Xbox in VR ?
Any chance of a new support for Reverb G2 after the end of WMR ? 🤔
Tyriel's got a lot of good lookin babes giving him compliments in the comments. What's his secret? 😉👍
Bots.
For Meta products I want under $1K. Then depending on what I spent feeds into how long I'll keep it before replacing it. So a $500 I'd keep for at least 2 years then replace. But one for $750 (better be amazing) I'd want 3+ years of use out of it.
Technically Apple's VP was beautiful and cutting edge (I went for a demo) but I just didn't see many apps or use for it. I mean, no controllers?! So for me my Quest 3 was much better even with a lower resolution.
If you’re going to attach “Pro” to a device, better make sure the specs are up to par!!
I just want an oled 8k version for watching adu..i mean adventure movies😊
I would spend 1500 for a stand alone PCVR Headset that runs windows. Couldn't justify the purchase above 2000 at any time of the year other than tax season.
I'm willing to spend 1500$ on a modular VR Headset where I can swap out the OLED screen after burn in and connect new batteries (wired and separate from the device similar to apple vision pro) and decide to run it from the onboard Systems or simply use it as screen for my pc or Android mobile Device preferably all the computer and memory are separate as well similar to the battery of the apple vision pro.
No idea if swappable camera's would be possible but if so hell Yeah!. But if it's not a modular device that can truly be connected to multiple devices and swappable parts to extend the life of them there is no point dumping more than 400 - 600$ on a standalone device like that.
The audio is a little crispy
Just give me a displayport and an OLED screen with decent optics and eye-tracking. The computing should be located in a puc that could potentially be upgraded or replaced with my desktop computer. I would pay around 1500 dollars and would appreciate the option to not buy the puc. I prefer PC VR.
Google+samsung=new gearvr, which will have Minecraft vr -> maybe microsoft platform compatibility, like xbox, wmr?
I am willing to spend 2000€ on a Meta product, but ONLY if it is a perfect headset with 50-60 PPD, displayport, comfortable, premium materials and it is something that makes me happy so I don't have to think into an upgrade in the next 5 years. If that is the case, I will spend 2000€ more than happy to do it.
im interested in buying a made in the USA VR are there any???
no
What's the real story on windows mixed reality... Being discontinued?
From the 24h2 update it will stop working. So in case don't update
@@Tyrielwood
is windows not going to continue with VR ?
I understand steam vr will lose windows mixed reality also..
just don't update 24h2 ?
what platform would you suggest? meta . apple , play station uses windows mixed reality. with adapter?
thank you
when will someone that’s not pimax tap into high fov? I like my 200° of fov a lot
Im not buying any of the new headsets because i want eye and face tracking with my next headsets. Current ones is too low screen resolution, exept the Pico 4 pro. But their face tracking is not very good.
So im basicly just waiting for a new VRHeadset with 2160x2160 screen resolution or above
Has to have eye and face tracking.
And it needs to be wireless.
Price wise im willing to pay above 1000 Dollars if it has all these things and decently. But anything above 1400 Dollars is too much.
Im holding off until such a headset arrives. Until then i stick with my normal Pico 4.
Im just sad that nearly no company makes the eye and facetracking headsets.
Even eye tracking alone is often not made or they are pulled off very quickly.
I had high hopes for the Pico 4 Ultra to have eye and face tracking like their pro variant that they sadly only released in China.
For $3,000 it would have to be full dive AND cure my diabetes
your microphone is interfering with your wifi modem
Im sorry, but I'm never buying another headset unless it has eye tracking, the quest 2 is perfect for what it is, when I need power I hook it to my pc. The pass thru is intriguing, but im trying to escape from reality, bringing reality into my virtual world seems like a slight step back 😅 even if it seems cool I would never use it enough.
sounds good
Samsung micro-oled, pancake lens with controller. 2K it's ok
Per fortuna che l'audience è principalmente inglese perchè "la Jolla " fà molto ridere hahaha
$450 for a meta quest with a display or HDMI port
Bauch Cliffs
Buying Puffin day 1
I would say no more than $800
I’d pay an extra $500 for 4K per eye on my quest 3 and eye tracking
I wish all the Karens out there who are constantly whining about not getting EVERYTHING they want in a VR headset--basically for free--would sit down and take a "Grow-Up" pill.
The notion that these companies are building VR headsets out of thin air for nothing is not only fallacious, but ridiculous. After all, even if Meta, et. al., did use Wizards to build their headsets, they'd have to pay them.
At which point, they would pass those costs on to the consumer, because they aren't building VR headsets and games as a hobby.
The Meta Quest Pro wasn't terrible because the price was too high, it was terrible because the specs, relative to the price, were awful. Had it had better specs and fewer problems, the people who could have afforded it would have thrown their money down for it without a second thought...
...And the Karens would still be whining about how they should've been able to get it for a $1000 under what it actually cost to build it.
The sorry a$$ specs of Quest Pro is the reason why I didn't buy it.
The comments people are so rich.
Wunsch Pass
mofos aint trying to spend 3k on a headset from apple either check the sales. VR should be from around 400 for good 600 for great and up to about 2k for enthusiast. What I would like is oled to come back give me a quest 4 oled and I think that checks just about every box and would dominate and by that time we should get eyetracking with it at around 500 to 600 im all in.
1500 bucks for quest pro 2
Just give me a VR with better face tracking and I’ll pay whatever they want don’t need all those useless cameras in front
Your outro is *literally* like you're speaking a different language, slow doooooooooooown
I hope not I don't want extra hardware hanging off me with cables dangling and needs controls screw following apple they suck anyway
😂 🤦
vr was a fad just like the metaverse.
😆
only place i use vr is vrchat for socializing think thats the only area it has growth
@@Eskoxo VRChat is stagnant for at least 3 years
@@Shadow_banned_by_TH-cam just looked charts say average user base has doubled in 3 years
@@Eskoxo 150 years to go at that pace
Why would any of us invest thousands of dollars into a new pro headset considering the old pro headset is barely 2 years old and it's already not supported anymore?
Clarabelle Stravenue