Last fall, Meta-formerly-Facebook unveiled its Meta Quest Pro, a long-rumored, higher-end follow-up to the company's best-selling Quest 2 VR headset. The sleek device, which initially went on sale for an eye-watering $1,500, has really struggled to catch on since then, just as we predicted at the ti...
Facebook's VR Headset Not Selling, Literally Giving It Away::Last fall, Meta-formerly-Facebook unveiled its Meta Quest Pro, a long-rumored, higher-end follow-up to the company's best-selling Quest 2 VR headset. The sleek device, which initially went on sale for an eye-watering $1,500, has really struggled to catch on since then, just as we predicted at the time. And, as Mixed Reality News reports, Meta is […]
Meh. If they've still got some free ones to give out I'll take it.
But in all seriousness, the Quest 2 is pretty good hardware, especially for the price. The problem is that Meta tried to build an ecosystem around monetization and then bring people in, rather than building something that appeals to most people and still allows them to profit. Kinda the opposite of the Facebook model really, which became a defacto online community and kinda kept the monetization a little quieter or behind the scenes for a long time
They could release the best possible VR hardware that puts your body into a dream state and allows you to experience things fully in VR for $99 and I still wouldn't touch it if meta, fb, or zuckberg has anything to do with it.
I wonder: Did the people who successfully pulled off the Facebook strategy get replaced by dumber, greedier ones, did they get overruled by dumber, greedier decision-makers, did they get overconfident and thought their current market position would let Meta get away with it, or did they get lucky in the first place and fail to take any notes on why it worked?
Corporations tend to run on "if it works, why change?" so mixing up your entire strategy to this degree seems like it must've been a deliberate decision. I'm just curious who made that decision, and by what reasoning.
Well, possibly people have finally been turned off by Zuck Zuck and his creepy-ass avatar doing their combined best to make his "Metaverse" pipe dream as cringeworthy as possible. Seems he can't get it through his head that all we really want to do is play video games (and I guess maybe watch VR porn), and for $1500/999, we can buy an awful lot of game console with change left over for some games, or a pretty significant chunk of normal gaming PC.
I think I'll stick with my Reverb G2. I wouldn't take a Meta/Facebook backed device, nor touch its ecosystem, if they paid me.
I've spent over $1500 on VR (HTC Vive, and Valve Index, plus some accessories for both). I've never been able to talk myself into even a Quest 2 for $200 back when they went on sale shortly before they raised the price due to "supply chain issues." I enjoy VR experiences and I'm personally okay with paying enthusiast prices for hardware that improves the experience, but I want nothing to do with Meta/Facebook's ecosystem, at any price.
This ^
That is all the same exact reasoning I thought of when I purchased my Valve Index this year. Sure, it's older hardware at this point but I want nothing to do with Meta/Facebook's ecosystem as well.
This is the dumbest take on what's happening. The Quest 3 is better than the Pro and it comes out next month. We don't need the Pro anymore. Some of y'all need to use some critical thinking. Roblox also just recently got a lot of attention towards it from Meta; it's not a coincidence these were Roblox devs that the Pros were given to.
Agreed. It sucks the Steam Index and HTC offerings are so expensive still, but they are top notch and they'll do anything and everything you need them to.
The goal has never been to sell VR head sets, the goal is to have 1Billion people on VR. The money would come from the monopoly they would have over selling software through their app store. Same way Google and Apple have a monopoly on who sells through their app stores. This has been zucks stated goal from the start
In my opinion, I think their goal was to control the platform. If you think about it, the amount of information that they can gather from users is wholly controlled by Google and Apple through their OS'.
Apple and Google have continuously decreased the amount of information Meta can gather through their apps, and I think with VR they made a huge bet that would be the next platform so they jumped on the ship to make sure that this time they would be controlling the platform and not another company.
I don't think they want to make money through software, I think they want to make money through data collection. The amount of data they can gather from you just through the setup, is incredible. They can literally know your height and have cameras on at all times.
I think VR can be successful, but I don't think Meta will do it. I don't think they're be the ones getting the ball rolling at least. If anything their marketing and the bad name they gave to VR set things back. I think they're too early and have a pretty bad brand image for people to trust them. I don't think the hardware or the software support is there for things to fully take off either
Also, wouldn't their goal be to sell VR headsets? How would people buy their software without a headset? I think their goal was to sell headsets. Pretty sure they sold their budget headsets at a loss just to introduce people to the platform.
I loved my 3D monitor when playing games like Fallout NV and Skyrim, because I could just sit down, put on some glasses, and play the game as normal. But I can't get used to wearing a heavy, hot, giant pair of goggles to play a game. Plus the learning curve was entirely unnecessary, and the lack of any straight 3D support for existing games is unforgivable.
I've found the idea that modern VR is a "fad" comes from people with limited VR experience. It's not their fault, since cheap consumer VR like the standalone quest headsets is mostly limited to what amounts to the equivalent of mobile games -- they're toys.
I own a relatively expensive setup and have experienced the top tier of what consumer VR has to offer: it's incredibly impressive. But that also highlights the issues. Quality consumer VR is expensive, fiddly, and currently has an extremely limited/niche number of worthwhile games and experiences.
The reality is the current tech is really the first generation of practical consumer VR with capabilities beyond "headache inducing novelty". It'll never replace "2D", it still needs to come down in price, but it's hardly a "fad".
The Quest 2 sells fine. The Quest Pro is for an audience that doesn’t exist at $1500. Also, Apple’s VR headset might as well not exist due to how expensive it is.
Ok I agree with all that sentiment, but in the article I only saw a $500 price drop, were they ever free or are you taking the world literally figuratively?
And now, as Mixed Reality News reports, Meta is literally resorting to giving them away for free: Attendees of this year's developer conference for the global gaming platform Roblox each got a free Meta Quest Pro
I definitely would not. I have opted out of Facebook’s insidious and predatory algorithm, platform for spreading misinformation, and anti-consumer micro violations in privacy which culminate into a prodigious amoral corporation that abuses human rights. And they want me to put a headset on and join their ecosystem? Fuck that.
I don't really regret it, because it was a truly awesome experience while it was fresh, and I probably sunk hundreds of hours into it over the pandemic. But yeah, it does get old surprisingly quickly, and there are literally no new games for it that aren't arcade-style trash from the past few years.
Sadly, I think HL:A was the peak of VR gaming, and it's all been downhill from there.
Maybe when standalones get powerful enough that they can run "real" games, it'll kickoff again, but I don't think I've put on my headset in months at this point, and there's nothing on the horizon that's likely to make me grab it again any time soon