Yeah, at about £500 I’d have got one. I don’t need the full Steam OS or any of that crap. I just want wireless connection to my PC for streaming.
The use of a second wireless dongle could be a double edged sword as well. Right now I can use a Quest anywhere in the house on Wifi. Works better than wired, in fact. The dongle would limit where I can use it.
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A $1k would break it in this market… The specs suggest a little lower end generally than Quest 3 hardware wise, or in the ballpark (comparable display and optics, lower quality cameras). The only notable improvement is including eye tracking, which is nice, but not $1k nice…
$500 should be a good target, some tradeoffs with Quest 3 (worse ‘AR’, better eye tracking and PC connectivity).
echodot@feddit.uk 16 hours ago
It’s a VR headset so no one really cares about the cameras. The only headset with cameras that are any good is on the Apple Pro which is ludicrously expensive. The quest 3s cameras are fine but you can’t really read a display while wearing it so they’re basically useless for AR stuff.
jj4211@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
This is more thinking about material cost rather than relative value. If you save money on the passthrough and incur a few costs above the Quest 3 but nothing dramatic, then I’m just saying the pricing needs to be in the ballpark of Quest 3. Better value by making smarter choices that may not have a cost impact (e.g. using a maintstream high end SoC instead of a niche SoC, putting the battery at the back instead of making it front heavy).
Of course they may be hampered by different business needs. Meta affording to risk more money than Valve can risk might drive higher price point, but it would be unfortunate.