Comment by nilkn
7 hours ago
For me, the economics are the exact opposite. I'd pay $1000 for a good gaming VR headset, but not $4000 -- because gaming is just a hobby that isn't really worth that much to me. Gaming VR headsets have been around for well over a decade, I've "been there, done that", and it's just not something that's worth that much money to me. However, I have no problem paying $3500+ for something that creates a new category of productivity and entertainment experiences for me.
Besides that, I actually disagree that the Vision Pro is not good for gaming. It's not good for traditional VR gaming, but using apps like Portal it's phenomenal for, e.g., playing existing PS5 games on a massive virtual screen, which in many ways I actually enjoy more than VR gaming, which is far too limited in comparison.
The market spoke. The overwhelming majority of people don't want to pay $4,000 for a tethered AR experience. You're the minority.
Conversely; the grandparent comment is still right, Apple could have made this a real VR headset without compromising any part of the AR experience. Apple knew that Hololens was a total failure, they saw the pushback on Google Glass, they should have known that people would feel like an idiot buying one of those headsets. Instead of trying to recoup the missed opportunity, Apple doubles down and pretends that those experiences are beneath them.
Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it. AVP isn't unique for that, it's was already outsold by the Index and it's eschatologically destined to be outsold by user-respecting headsets like the Steam Frame. It's downright impossible to imagine a world where Vision Pro outsells the Quest.
The overwhelming majority of people don't want any VR device available today at all.
I'm perfectly fine being the minority for now. You say that as if you think I'd have a problem with that. That does absolutely nothing to sway my thinking, which is based on my own principles, not a popularity contest at a single moment in time. You are dramatically underestimating my personal comfort maintaining an unpopular perspective for an extended period of time (years) based on fundamentals.
> Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it
No thanks. This is, of course, technically possible, but the quality is so astoundingly low compared to the Vision Pro that, for me, it would be a waste of time. You're welcome to do this if you so please with your time.
I'd imagine that you do have a problem with it. You're reliant on AR experiences, which are reliant on install bases, which the Apple Vision Pro has none of. There is currently no incentive to produce software for this dead platform like there is for iOS or iPad, so much so that you're bragging about streaming games that the hardware could run natively - if Apple respected their users.
It's no skin off my back when you pay $3,500 for that type of mistreatment. Whatever "principles" that led you down that path aren't going to make the Vision Pro a more enjoyable experience. You're virtue signalling a platform that everyone predicted would be a failure.
1 reply →