-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple Vision Pro VR will start at $3499.
- Thread starter Draxon Gamer
- Start date
ResilientBanana
Member
I did. I saw that you can bring your Apple Laptop screen into the Vision OS, but Vision OS doesn’t have a desktop of sorts. It would be nice to have it function like a laptop with multiple screens considering the resolution of the lenses. If it had that as a stand-alone feature it would be work the price of admission, especially if i could use a mouse and keyboard with it
Last edited:
I meant its a abnormal case for what most would spend on a high end rig.
BootsLoader
Banned
I am not trying to make up anything. I just show they way it actually is.
This really isn't as bad as you are trying to make it out to be. This has happened before and they always bounce back within a few weeks. If this downward trend continues past that - then it is "getting worse and worse".
sono
Member
Fredrik
Member
Great high budget AAA games. That’s what I need. I already have a Quest 2, it’a not used much at the moment but not because it’s bad or big or unfomfortable but because of the games library. Fortunately it has SteamVR compatibility, modders has improved some of my favorites a lot. But it’s not enough, it needs a serious AAA push, the whole VR/AR industry needs that.
Imagine the Apple headset with SteamVR compatibility and Half-Life Alyx playable at launch.
Ammogeddon
Member
That Apple EyeSight feature is superfluous and looks dumb.
It’s purely there to indicate to others whether you can see them in pass through (and visa versa) or in an immersive experience. So you’re basically paying for someone else’s benefit.
If it’s that important for you to have eye contact with someone then I’d suggest it would be polite for you to take the headset off for a moment. That way you look less of a twat.
Scrapping that would drop the price, weight and power consumption.
It’s purely there to indicate to others whether you can see them in pass through (and visa versa) or in an immersive experience. So you’re basically paying for someone else’s benefit.
If it’s that important for you to have eye contact with someone then I’d suggest it would be polite for you to take the headset off for a moment. That way you look less of a twat.
Scrapping that would drop the price, weight and power consumption.
CobraAB
Member
Uh, ok….I did not think anyone would ever manage to beat the utter stupidity that was the presentation of HoloLens... but somehow Apple managed the impossible. This must be the worst tech announcement I have ever seen, and not by a small margin. I really want my 40 minutes of life back. What an absolute, unmitigated trainwreck.
Those who hype this turd deserve to be mocked more than the NFT bros.
... and probably are the same people.
stickkidsam
Member
I’m not sure what world you lived in where the utility of the iPhone wasn’t entirely apparent. People scoffed at the price sure, but everyone I knew understood what made it valuable. Let’s also not forget that the original iPhone was 500 bucks. That’s a pretty STEEP difference.
These goggles are not even remotely comparable. They’re for a different market entirely and their use is mostly novel. Anything you can do with this thing can be done in your house or office already. Meanwhile an iPhone could be used anywhere and puts all the devices you’d have on the go in one.
I could be missing something but, “People have been wrong before so that means people are wrong now” ain’t it.
Fredrik
Member
I’m not too rich but I’m inside their ecosystem already and I think I could save up the cash through stocks until it launches and buy it if I wanted. But I don’t see the point. What should I use it for if AAA devs yet again sit on the fence like they do with VR? Watch movies no longer than 2 hours, play mobile games I could just as well play on my phone or Apple TV, drag around windows, and look like a dork in facetime calls who waste too much money on tech junk?
There is some cool tech inside this thing, no doubt, but it’s launching without knowing if there will ever be a significant market or proper developer support. They could’ve at least made it SteamVR compatible to get a user boost and hype from PCVR users and modders.
diffusionx
Gold Member
The whole point of Vision OS is that your entire range of vision is a desktop. You can move windows around, run apps, etc. You don't need a laptop, although you can integrate with it. No mouse and keyboard, it is all gestures and eye tracking.
Disco Dave
Member
No headphone jack, no sale.
E-Cat
Member
It's still a great product even if it's not affordable for you.
Last edited:
E-Cat
Member
This is further away from Vive than Vive is from Oculus DK1 in terms of technology. Also in terms of time
E-Cat
Member
'Spatial computer'. Apple also did not use the word "AI" once in their presentation. They know what they're doing, those hipster fucks
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Not about being affordable, it's the most expensive gimmick in the market.
Amory
Member
A day later and this price is still pretty gasp-inducing. I expected north of $1000, maybe even $1800 or $2000 base price with configurations well into the twos. $3500 makes this accessible to three audiences:
1) the youtube/internet tech crowd who will get them for free
2) true apple fanatics who will be there a week early to camp out in front of stores and dump 2 paychecks on it
3) rich people / rich people's kids
None of these groups are remotely mainstream. What's more, the mainstream doesn't even have access to these groups in day to day life. I remember before I had a smartphone, seeing people at school and on the bus using their iPhones and knowing I wanted one. With this thing, I question how much I actually want it, I won't know anyone who owns one, and even when I see it in public, it's not like I can experience what the user is seeing. It's easier to just ignore.
VR/AR has had enough trouble getting traction as it is even in the $500 range. This seems like a miss, but what do I know.
1) the youtube/internet tech crowd who will get them for free
2) true apple fanatics who will be there a week early to camp out in front of stores and dump 2 paychecks on it
3) rich people / rich people's kids
None of these groups are remotely mainstream. What's more, the mainstream doesn't even have access to these groups in day to day life. I remember before I had a smartphone, seeing people at school and on the bus using their iPhones and knowing I wanted one. With this thing, I question how much I actually want it, I won't know anyone who owns one, and even when I see it in public, it's not like I can experience what the user is seeing. It's easier to just ignore.
VR/AR has had enough trouble getting traction as it is even in the $500 range. This seems like a miss, but what do I know.
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
Who is this aimed at? Can't see they expecting dedicated players to pay for this and casual players have way more convenient devices to get like a console or phone, even they're iphone.
Future? Hmmm...
The Fartist
Gold Member
On the bright side, this makes PSVR2 look a whole lot more attainable.
E-Cat
Member
So if you were too rich, this expensive gimmick would turn into a great product?
E-Cat
Member
Who wants a PSVR2 after seeing the Vision Pro, though?
The Fartist
Gold Member
You're right, I should play GT7 on a Vision Pro instead.
E-Cat
Member
I mean you'd want to if you could.
Zannegan
Member
I mean, if I had to pick between the two, I'd def get the PSVR.
That said, I think neither makes a compelling argument for purchase right now.
E-Cat
Member
Its specs are so much worse, though.
I actually agree neither is a sensible purchase right now.
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Then you are doing a pathetic job as you actively make it look like a bigger issue than it really is. Your falsified claims have already been disproven by numerous people here.
The Fartist
Gold Member
If I could drop $3500 and connect it to a PS5? Yeah, I guess I would, but...
E-Cat
Member
Which is my point exactly. Even if it's unaffordable and not part of the Playstation ecosystem, just knowing the Vision Pro exists instantly makes the PSVR2 less desirable.
E-Cat
Member
Its focus doesn't seem to be in gaming at all.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
For the rich / rich people's kids? Nah, mate. I am easily mid to lower income and I could get this with basic savings in a few months. But I also don't live like a moron in a massive city with absurd rent costs.
The Fartist
Gold Member
Of course I'd choose the Vison Pro if price wasn't an issue, that's my point, Vision Pro's price makes the PSVR2 more do-able from a price point, not desirable. That's all I'm saying. Obviously, I know the V Pro is a 5+ years ahead of PSVR2.
E-Cat
Member
I guess in some abstract comparison sense, though the value proposition hasn't been improved whatsoever by this development...
The Fartist
Gold Member
Zannegan
Member
PSVR2 is much worse hardware-wise, especially the screens. On the other hand, it has a lot more functionality that I would actually want.
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to mainstream hardware inching toward what Apple is showing off today over the next five years, but as an actual product, I'd get very little use out of what Apple showed. I'm not just looking at its merits as a "gaming device" either, as it's clearly not designed for that. I actually really like the productivity angle, and having lenses/eye tracking of that fidelity is going to be key for the infinite desktops of tomorrow. The display/passthrough tech just isn't enough to pique my interest as-is.
I can wait for other displays to catch up, but I wouldn't want to sit there with a $3,500 lump of potential whose internals will be easily outclassed by the time the functionality I'm looking for catches up. The PSVR at least has some experiences now that I'd be interested in.
Again though, we agree that neither is a good buy today.
Oddvintagechap
Member
what does this have to do with loyalty?
It’s a high end monitor on your face, pass through, with great UI.
Is there a reason I shouldn’t get this?
Am I some LG fanboy cause I bought a 4,000$ OLED TV?
And they did show that mouse and keyboard work while you wear the headset....
Amory
Member
I'm not saying it'll be impossible to buy a headset on a middle class income, particularly with today's culture of buying everything on credit. Sure there's plenty of people who could go out and pay cash for one if they were so inclined. I question how many people will actually do it.
$3500 is a fuckin hurdle to jump, even if you make a lot of money.
Fredrik
Member
On the not-so-bright side this makes all other headsets look dated. Quest 3 was just announced and all I’m thinking now is: Meh.
Last edited:
Marvel14
Banned
Yes I see...impressive but still with a shadow so more like wearing light shades than full unfettered eye contact...don't think that will fly...unless our norms change...
PaddyOCanager
Member
Can I use this while driving?
I like to watch YouTube and post on GAF while driving, and it's been pretty dangerous using my phone to do this. These goggles seem like a sensible solution to my problems. Two hour battery life is more than enough for my commute.
I like to watch YouTube and post on GAF while driving, and it's been pretty dangerous using my phone to do this. These goggles seem like a sensible solution to my problems. Two hour battery life is more than enough for my commute.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Fair enough. It is certainly something you need to make a concerted efffort to buy - like a new PC or upgrading an Apple Product.
Marvel14
Banned
When they figure out how to sell these as a set of four headsets and one compute unit so it can actually replace your TV for $2500 ...reckon it will then become mainstream.
Last edited: