Not the Vision Pro, but I got the latest Facebook device around Christmas time, and it got almost entirely shelved before the end of January. I maybe get it out, for a workout, once a month now.
Some of the games were really fun, most notably Walkabout Minigolf and Super Hot VR.
Some of the exercise programs were pretty neat, most notably The Thrill of the Fight and Les Mills Body combat.
It did not work well as a replacement for either a TV or a computer monitor. The device was just too bulky and inconvenient and the software too clunky. So much easier to just use a laptop, if I want to work / watch on the go.
In the end, none of the experiences were compelling enough to keep using it regularly.
I still use my Oculus 2 a few times a week (I try for daily, but life doesn't allow it), but just Beat Saber and FitXR. It just replaces going to the the gym though if there is some problem with doing that.
I can't imagine using an AVP though, without controllers it really isn't suited to fitness.
Beat Saber was worth the price of admission alone, at least when you could mod custom songs onto the headset itself. There were also websites that would generate a Beat Saber level for any YouTube video you gave it, which was great for playing along to brand-new releases.
It was really such a good game that I'm surprised we haven't seen more stuff like it. Of all the futuristic VR experiences I've tried (even HL: Alyx) Beat Saber was the only one that really felt effortlessly futuristic.
When the Vive first came out, there was a neat VR FPS named Pavlov VR that was pretty fun.
It was neat to play an FPS where ducking for cover worked, reloading involved actually having to pull a magazine from your belt and jam it in, you could duck behind something and blind fire over it.
It mostly worked very well. The annoyances were around how physically exhausting constantly ducking and weaving was (and sweating into the foam), and getting lost in the moment and nearly sprinting out of the "safety box" into a coffee table.
I was excited to try it because it seems so much more hygienic -- you can wipe it down and the foam won't degrade. But I quickly discovered that it got all clammy and sticky on my skin, and then humidity would build up and fog up the lenses. What! Kind of the same way swim goggles fog up.
Whereas the regular foam padding is... perfectly fine. No sweating, no fog, no humidity, nothing, because enough air seems to pass through and nothing is suffocating your skin.
And I'm not even a sweaty person or anything, not at all. And I'm just reclining watching movies, it's not even for movement. But the silicone layer over the foam just creates this airtight (enough) seal which is just bad all around.
I tried one before the one that just came with the Oculus 2 and thought the same. I guess there is a lot of variation in silicon foam covers, but the standard one that comes with the headset works for me. I sweat a lot when I do VR, so without a cover, the foam head piece is going to get soaked and smelly.
BeatSaber would be so much better with custom music, so would FitXR. But I don't have time to figure out how to do that as I used to.
It is too bad Facebook doesn't lean more into BeatSaber and rhythm game/fitness experiences, they are simple, easy to sell, and are pretty satisfying. But I guess it really isn't good enough for their product, they really need metaverse to take off.
> [150 words about a totally different product and platform]
Vision Pro isn't something I would use regularly, but you're bringing opinions about a 14" CRT monitor to a thread soliciting opinions on a specific 30" 1080P TV. I think we are beyond the stage where useful generalizations about "the state of AR/VR" can be drawn from exposure to a single device.
The disparity in screen quality and OS sophistication between Oculus 3 and Vision Pro is enormous (and both platforms are self-evidently in their infancy).
Whether you think they have succeeded or not, and whether you think the price point is reasonable or not, Vision Pro is as different to Quest 3 as a BlackBerry Bold 9700 was to a Nokia 7650.
No it's not. When tossing up a vr purchase it's Vision pro, quest 3 or big screen beyond. Price points all vary but they are literally all the same shiz just served on a different shovel.
Each have their pros, each have their cons (well the mvp has mostly cons being the worst of the 3 but hey its having a crack).
Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two, even if they were "the same shiz" spec-wise, Id still not comment on Vision Pro over Quest - the reason being I have Macook Air. Spec-wise, that laptop is almost identical to any other laptop, but the level of refinement is on another planet. Its tousands little things that make using Air a joy, while dealing with my work HP Zbook is a pain in every way.
For that same reason, I dont dare to compare Vision to any other VR (and I tried a few, not Vision Pro tho).
> Spec-wise, that laptop is almost identical to any other laptop
Post-M series I hear this from time to time and always ask people to show me something in the same weight class with equivalent battery life, performance, and screen quality.
Has the market finally caught up to the point where your statement is true? (Not asking you to research, just curious if any spring to mind from any pre-purchase research you did.)
> Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two
I think this is far too charitable.
1. We are a largely technical audience.
2. We are discussing a product category where, per the last ten years of discussion about early hardware drawbacks (and the critical consensus on Vision Pro), the screen inescapably defines the experience.
Anyone on HN describing Vision Pro's screen as "the same shiz" as Quest 3 must either be a troll or operating with a knowledge gap so vast as to make meaningful discussion very, very difficult.
Like, if you don't understand the math, read the reviews and trust that this is not a global cabal of Apple apologists making shit up. Occam's Razor: this is a $3500 device where 35% of the BOM is the screens ($550-ish), compared to a $500 device where ~19% of the BOM is screens ($80). Of course they aren't in the same league.
> Post-M series I hear this from time to time and always ask people to show me something in the same weight class with equivalent battery life, performance, and screen quality
Law of diminishing returns. If I
only need 8 hours of battery life, the fact that the M6 MacPro has a 48-day battery won't move me - a Framework/Dell with a 12-hour battery life would be on par as "good enough for me" on the battery life metric.
> If I only need 8 hours of battery life, the fact that the M6 MacPro has a 48-day battery won't move me
But it will. Suddenly you don't need to worry about putting it on charger on the evening, it will still be there second day with enough charge to leave you worry free. It's a fundamental change that competition just doesn't get.
I am still a bit surprised they went with so much aluminium, but I expected the final weight to be bigger. Can't wait for Vision Air. Imagine it supporting OpenXR from windows machine, instant hit for massive gamer audience already used to spending thousands on peripherals.
You just listed the shovels. It's all just vr. That's the shiz, the shovel is the specs. The end use though is the same shiz between them with the same goal, the goal is to provide vr.
Some of the games were really fun, most notably Walkabout Minigolf and Super Hot VR.
Some of the exercise programs were pretty neat, most notably The Thrill of the Fight and Les Mills Body combat.
It did not work well as a replacement for either a TV or a computer monitor. The device was just too bulky and inconvenient and the software too clunky. So much easier to just use a laptop, if I want to work / watch on the go.
In the end, none of the experiences were compelling enough to keep using it regularly.