After several years, there's been nothing more humbling than trying to get Simula off the ground (first developing the software, and now the hardware). We've been smacked in the face so many times. So we don't feel very arrogant, at least.
Maybe our tone isn't quite right. We're just trying to convey to people that our headset has a different use case/is designed for something different than portable gaming/entertainment.
"We decided early on that, given the cards we were dealt, it's better to build a premium headset with a high price than to build a shitty headset with a low price. This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people don't realize this yet."
If you simply reworded this from "sub-par" to "other" or "existing" or "lower-end" you'd come across as less arrogant. I say this with upmost respect for what your team has been able to accomplish, but if the Quest 2 is "shitty" then your product is flaming garbage. But if you simply mean to say it's shitty in the particular dimensions / role you are designating the VRC (VR Computer) then you may reword it and be a bit more diplomatic.
Though it's true we are very opinionated about the Quest 2's adequacy for long VR computing sessions, we're not trying to be glib or flippant about the Quest 2 (an otherwise excellent VR headset for the price).
That said, marketing is really hard, and you're still doing a better job than me.