this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
416 points (100.0% liked)
196
16416 readers
1698 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
you can't compare the 3rd generation of a product to something that has been out for one month. also not that I am an apple fanboy, but visionos had 600 apps on release day, not including the thousands of ipad apps, which has now gone up to 1000 iirc. futhermore, vision pro has alvr
LMAO someone's got buyer's remorse
i dont have the money for a vision pro in the first place, im just an enthusiast in the space. i dont fangirl for big tech in general
Then what is this post? It's an Apple ad in shitpost clothing.
i mean if you think its an ad then go ahead
I interpreted it as making fun of Apple's marketing that people will wear it during IRL group activities
And it's obvious that a product that costs 7x more in a competitive space would be better, so it's not really stretching the truth to say that people will want it more
Didn't the first Quest have more games than the VPro does? Also the Quest runs basically every Android app available which comes out to over 3 million IIRC.
the vision pro isn't made for gaming while quest is, its not a fair comparison. Also yes, a quest can run any android app, but there is no native app store so everything has to be side loaded one by one, compared to apple that has the app store
Eh, I'd rather have good games and have to sideload normal apps than have basically no games and not be able to sideload at all.
I enjoyed your post, don't think it's an ad or anything, but I wanted to say I don't think it's a good argument to say a 3rd generation product can't be compared to a new product. A new product line is not created in a vacuum, it has the opportunity to learn from all previously released product lines.
If we were to say you can't compare them, consider this example: should a new TV company product be as good or better than a TV made just 3 years ago? Or would you say "you have to compare this tv to the first generation of all TV's?"
the originally commenter said "at least it has games and pcvr support" in this case its both wrong, and unfair anyway
It's not wrong and not unfair. The AVP can't connect to a gamng PC and be used for full fidelity VR, and it has basically no games, nor the controller support necessary for high quality games to come to it in the future.
its not meant for games at all, its a productivity device first and foremost, but you also didn't read my other comments where I clearly say it can
If it's not meant for games, it's 100% fair to say it has no games.
That's fair, my biggest qualm with it is the price/per value.
I could buy a valve index, a vr capable computer, a quest 3, and a steam deck, for the price.
As for your alvr point, you still need vr controllers to play most vr games.
you can sync up playspaces so the controllers aren't a problem, but the price is fair I guess. they couldn't have really made it much cheaper without sacrificing a tonne. the displays are apparently $700 alone?
Stop being a fan boi of a trillion dollar monopolistic corporation.
"The price is fair I guess"? You can buy SEVEN quests for the price of a vision pro.
they beat varjo in price
So there are 2 overpriced headsets
I could list a lot more
What an absurd assertion. Of course I can compare two products that are both on the market at the same time and fill the same niche.