**assuming streaming. Satisfactory, my current obsession, runs okay in the Frame but it’s definitely pushing it.
I’ve never had any kind of VR so this is all new to me, but having my game window in a comfortable place with other windows or desktops floating around me is the peak futuristic experience to me.
To reference one of my favorite books, Snow Crash, this is a place I could imagine meeting the Librarian and playing with a model of earth.
I could genuinely imagine working in this thing with the right peripherals.
Edit: flat, not 2D.
It’s not an AR device. There’s no point in putting better ones in, other than driving up the cost even higher than it already is. If you want better ones, they’re already on sale for you. They plug right in.
It’s a VR device in 2026. It shouldn’t have cameras from 2010. For people using it just as a “pick up and play VR for an hour” device, then it’s fine. But for $1000 and to use it as a serious VR headset, it’s rough.
There is zero application for passthrough in a VR headset. Again, you’re thinking of AR.
It’s only $1k because of the rampocalypse. You may have noticed all hardware prices have skyrocketed. You’re not finding a better deal elsewhere.
You are just very wrong and you clearly don’t use VR often.
Here’s a critical thinking exercise for you: if there is zero application for passthrough, why even include the cameras and/or advertise a 3rd party solution?
They are there for SLAM tracking, the passthrough is basic to let you find your way around for setup.
The 3rd party solution is because they didn’t want to exclude AR uses, but they didn’t want to work on it in-house and didn’t want to add good cameras to the cost, and this other company they knew was working on relevant camera tech so they decided to cooperate to let them launch their camera as an accessory.
So the base device does VR well, and AR users can get what they want with an accessory
Semantics about VR/AR. The cameras suck and better ones could be included for not that much more, for less than the accessory. What if I want to attach a different accessory in the future, but I need this camera attached for usable passthrough?
The poor passthrough is a major gripe the VR community has with this headset.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The existing cameras are for tracking the controllers. The aftermarket cameras are for AR content.
You are correct, about the 4 monochrome cameras being used for both passthrough and tracking. I was confusing the setup with Quest 3, where there are 2 extra RGB cameras for passthrough.
But you are still very wrong about the usefulness. Valve could have done better here without the need for an attachment.
Sure, they could have, and it would have driven up the price on what is already an expensive device, while providing nothing in return. Valve is a gaming company, and this is a gaming headset.
“while providing nothing in return.”
I think at this point it’s just very clear you are a big Valve fanboy. I bet you would defend the inclusion of them if they existed and I suggested they were useless.
I think at this point its very clear that you’re making up a bunch of nonsense about me because you don’t like what I said. Otherwise you would have simply explained their value to a gaming headset.
I mean, not having to take off the headset to walk to the kitchen, get a drink, and drink it, is a pretty awesome application of passthrough on a VR headset. Plus, talking to anyone else around you, checking your surroundings, making sure your dog isn’t right under you so you don’t smack it in the face.
Why wouldn’t you just take the headset off? Regardless, the existing cameras work well enough for that.
passthrough is a byproduct of the controller tracking