[CooCooCaCha]

This comment screams "I just want to be right about something".

Yeah the fov and the weight leave something to be desired so my comment isn't 100% accurate, sue me.

But you're purposefully ignoring the boatload of other things that ARE better.

[omni]

I'm not ignoring anything, but if my Lamborghini got out-accelerated by a Toyota I'd be upset about that, too. There's all sorts of other things to be upset about, again compared to the Quest 3. External battery pack and weight issues. No PCVR support, so you can't use the established ecosystem of games. No controllers at all, even for what could be an emerging ecosystem of Apple games. No headphone jack (I can't believe we're still doing this). The EyeSight thing doesn't work and it seems like all the marketing for it was simulated images.

The parts that are better end up not mattering. Why do I care if the resolution is better if what I want to do with it is play PCVR? Why do I care if it's great for watching movies if I'm not a loner who lives by myself? Why would I ever want to be represented by some nightmarish Persona thing?

Again, there are just way more compromises here than is justifiable for something that's literally 7x (at minimum!) the price of the competition. I want the iPod of VR/AR, this ain't it.

[CooCooCaCha]

This is like saying your Toyota is superior to a Lamborghini because Lamborghini's suck for road trips. After all, they're cramped, run out of gas too quickly, don't have enough cupholders, and it's hard to find repair shops on the road.

Yet if you made that argument people would look at you funny, and rightly so because when you're comparing Lamborghini's to other cars you usually talk about things like car performance, air drag, etc.

Likewise, on a technical level the Vision Pro is superior in pretty much every way except the FOV is slightly smaller and it has an external battery pack. The last of which is debatable because being external makes it swappable and upgradeable.

Otherwise, the vision pro is an incredible piece of tech. Better lens technology, better eye tracking and foveated rendering, better passthrough, superior display quality, far higher pixel density, superior hand tracking, real-time environment mapping with LIDAR, higher quality build materials, etc.

All of those things add up and push the boundaries of AR/VR tech. Is it pricy? Obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if the build cost is significantly higher.

[omni]

Alright dude, you clearly just want to enjoy your $3500 toy, don't let me stop you. I love and support you, brother. Meanwhile I'll keep doing a ton of stuff on my technically inferior VR headset that the AVP can't do at all, like actually playing games.

[CooCooCaCha]

You know it doesn't have to be like this right? I'm fine with the vision pro and the quest 3 existing. This discussion only happened because you refused to acknowledge what is obviously true.