alt Hacker NewsFor me, the economics are the exact opposite. I'd pay $1000 for a good gaming VR headset, but not $4000 -- because gaming is just a hobby that isn't really worth that much to me. Gaming VR headsets have been around for well over a decade, I've "been there, done that", and it's just not something that's worth that much money to me. However, I have no problem paying $3500+ for something that creates a new category of productivity and entertainment experiences for me.
Besides that, I actually disagree that the Vision Pro is not good for gaming. It's not good for traditional VR gaming, but using apps like Portal it's phenomenal for, e.g., playing existing PS5 games on a massive virtual screen, which in many ways I actually enjoy more than VR gaming, which is far too limited in comparison.
The market spoke. The overwhelming majority of people don't want to pay $4,000 for a tethered AR experience. You're the minority.
Conversely; the grandparent comment is still right, Apple could have made this a real VR headset without compromising any part of the AR experience. Apple knew that Hololens was a total failure, they saw the pushback on Google Glass, they should have known that people would feel like an idiot buying one of those headsets. Instead of trying to recoup the missed opportunity, Apple doubles down and pretends that those experiences are beneath them.
Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it. AVP isn't unique for that, it's was already outsold by the Index and it's eschatologically destined to be outsold by user-respecting headsets like the Steam Frame. It's downright impossible to imagine a world where Vision Pro outsells the Quest.