Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between the two devices. Maybe $500.
It's no different than consumer GPU's. There will be enthusiasts who purchase the GTX 4090 for $2000 but the average consumer is far better off buying something like a 3060Ti for $340.
My favorite example of this is a site called Logical Increments [0] that clearly shows just how expensive pushing to the next tier of quality is as you scale up.
Users want to be able to do things like connect to their computer and be able to read small text on the virtual monitor.
Both headsets are not equal on the "readable text" metric.
A lot of companies are going to buy it just to figure out what types of apps can be made for the platform.
I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close. The display specs are way more than enough to be able to observe this.
Yeah, Vive -> Index -> Quest 2 -> Varjo Aero[^1] -> Quest 3 -> Vision Pro.
Yeah FOV is worse, yeah it costs more, virtually order of magnitude more.
People are responding to "The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.", i.e. dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.
I never, ever opted into watching video on any headset until now. Like, yeah, I tried it. I watched stuff. This is organic "I want to watch stuff, where's the VR headset?" instead of "here's a VR headset, I can watch stuff"
Something that escaped me until a week ago was a good visualization of the pixel density. I thought the Aero was amazing. It is/was.
I assumed Vision Pro was marginally more or less than the Aero.
Actually, Aero::Vision Pro is roughly Vive 1::Aero.
[^1] that one is important, that's real street cred, you know I care, invest, and know what I'm talking about
I think it depends on use case. Is having a bunch of high resolution floating screens the killer app or just a gimmick? For most current VR users, they're not going to see a significant benefit from higher resolution Beat Saber.
That in itself is a false question, no? Nobody says they are as good. I haven't seen even the most ardent Meta fan suggest such a thing.
It's not a question of whether they are as good but whether the difference matters enough. There is a curve with very sharply diminishing returns and a lot of threshold effects (once you get close to screen door effect going away, nobody cares that you made it 1% less noticeable any more etc).
It's definitely very personal, so this is completely normal, but I don't think you are even slightly representative of where the general public would fall. For reference, I myself and a number of people I know quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement. It's borderline - Quest Pro was not good enough - but Quest 3 is - for me.
If it's in Immersed, then I've probably talked to you. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it has around double the clarity. This is trivially perceived. I'm definitely not special here. You should really go look through an AVP at an Apple store. If you have a high res computer display, you can also somewhat emulate it.