Somehow another year has come and gone. 2024 will mark the 13th year that we’ve been following this XR journey here at Road to VR. With an eye on that long-term perspective, it’s once again time to reflect on the biggest stories of the last year and to talk about what’s on the horizon.

Apple Announces Vision Pro

Image courtesy Apple
The News

Apple announced is Vision Pro headset in June of 2023 marking the company’s first public step into the XR headset space. Apple also boldly announced the headset’s staggering $3,500 price, despite a launch date set for nearly a year later.

The headset, a mixed reality device that’s centered around AR, notably excludes any kind of motion controller—the staple input method for every major XR headset on the market today. Instead a ‘look-and-tap’ system relying on eye and hand-tracking is the core input method, and by all accounts (including mine) it works very well.

What it Means for 2024

The first article about Apple that I ever wrote on Road to VR was this one in 2014 about the company filing a job posting seeking someone with experience in AR and VR. 10 years later, Apple is finally about to launch its first headset.

While Vision Pro has yet to launch, it has certainly been the most talked about story in 2023. Within in the industry it’s hard to find any conversation about the future of XR that doesn’t inevitably involve Apple. That tends to happen when the tech company titan announces that it will take a firm step into the space.

While nobody can know yet how big the headset’s impact will be, it has already sparked debates about the future of the XR industry as a whole. Apple’s decision to focus on hand-tracking input instead of using controllers essentially means the bulk of VR applications built to date won’t work with the headset. That forces developers to choose to focus on this brand new and very expensive platform with the hope that it grows rapidly, or to stick with the established market currently dominated by Meta.

Sony's Upcoming MR Headset Could Point the Way for Controllers on Vision Pro

Vision Pro isn’t exactly revolutionizing XR hardware (though the external display is pretty cool), but its real advantage stands to be a mature software platform that’s easy to use and easy to develop for.

At $3,500, Vision Pro isn’t going to sell many units, but it’s clear that Apple will aim to drive costs down over time while maintaining the same quality of the experience.

In the near term that means the headset’s biggest impact is very likely to be on Meta, since up to this point the company has essentially been able to write the rules of the standalone XR headset era. The company will now have an equally large peer whose moves in the market can’t be ignored.

If you recall, Zuckerberg specifically got Meta into XR because he wanted to free his company from the grip of Apple and Google (the prevailing gatekeepers of the smartphone era). So you can bet he isn’t going to stand idly by while Apple takes over the XR market.

While Apple’s entrance into XR represents a risk to Meta, in the long term the competition is very likely to grow the industry as a whole, making it better and more accessible for end users.

Sony Launches PlayStation VR 2

Image courtesy Sony
The News

After uncertainty about the company’s commitment to VR years after the launch of its first PSVR headset in 2016, Sony finally doubled down with PSVR 2. The headset has some wholly unique capabilities not seen on other consumer VR headsets, like eye-tracking, head-haptics, and adaptive triggers.

The headset also launched alongside Horizon Call of the Mountain, the first native VR game based on one of Sony’s major first-party IPs.

What it Means for 2024

Though the headset seemed to come out of the gate with strong momentum, by the end of 2023 PSVR 2 doesn’t feel like it has garnered significant traction. Despite a handful of exclusive games, the platform feels like it has the same problem as PC VR—the dominance of Quest has meant the vast majority of games are built for Meta’s headsets first, then ported to PSVR 2 and PC VR.

That’s meant a dearth of unique, high quality content for PSVR 2 (amplified by a lack of backwards support for original PSVR games). Combine that with the price difference between PSVR 2 and Quest 2 (along with the need to also own a PS5), and it’s clear why Sony’s headset seems to be struggling.

It hasn’t helped that after a strong launch, Sony doesn’t seem to be giving the headset much attention. Outside of a few game announcement presentations, it doesn’t look like the company has focused heavily on marketing the headset over the last six months, nor has it announced any major new native VR titles coming to the headset.

If Sony doesn’t kick things into gear with PSVR 2 in 2024, there’s a real chance the platform could end up on life-support.

HTC Launches Vive XR Elite

Image courtesy HTC
The News

HTC launched its first real competitor to Meta’s Quest line earlier this year with a renewed effort toward getting top games onto its platform (a challenge the company long struggled with while trying to gain a foothold with its Viveport platform for PC VR).

However, Vive XR Elite’s $1,100 price-point put it more in line with Meta’s Quest Pro which was initially priced at $1,500 before Meta undercut HTC by dropping it to $1,000.

What it Means for 2024

Similar to Quest Pro, Vive XR Elite has struggled to find a strong position within the market considering its price and use-cases. Ostensibly it’s a headset that’s good for playing standalone VR and MR games, but there isn’t enough added value from the headset’s emphasis on still-immature mixed reality use-cases when put next to a $300 Quest 2 that has a much stronger game library. Quest Pro suffers from the same issue and it too has seemingly been supplanted by the more affordable Quest 3.

'Mobile Suit Gundam' VR Interactive Anime Unveiled in New Teaser, Coming to Quest

That leaves HTC to fall back to the enterprise sector, the one place where it has long had a strong reputation.

Meta has started and stopped its enterprise-focused XR programs far too often to be considered a reliable partner for large business activations. HTC has stepped up to the plate to offer an enterprise platform that ticks the most important boxes for larger business use-cases, including fleet management software, and enterprise-focused security.

But that means that HTC remains stuck where it essentially has been for the last few years; unable to compete in the consumer space because of Meta’s hardware subsidy. We don’t see that changing in 2024 unless HTC brings something disruptive to the table and backs it up with perfect execution.

Meta Cuts Quest Pro Price Significantly

Image courtesy Meta
The News

Quest Pro launched in late 2022, positioned as a device that would transform professional workflows. At $1,500 it’s the most expensive headset the company has ever sold. Less than 6 months after it launched, Quest Pro’s price was considerably and permanently reduced to $1,000.

What it Means for 2024

Meta clearly realized the headset simply didn’t provide enough value to be priced at $1,500. Though the hardware was quite impressive, I noted in my review that Quest Pro struggled with focus—it played games better than Quest 2, but lacked key apps and clearly defined use-cases that made its mixed reality capabilities truly matter.

At least from the outside, Quest Pro feels like a real stumble for Meta. Not only because of the big price cut, but also because the $500 Quest 3 released not long after in many ways outclasses Quest Pro while significantly undercutting its price.

Meta is still selling Quest Pro but it isn’t clear how enthusiastic the company is about the Quest Pro’s future as a product line. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no Quest Pro 2 in 2024, especially while Meta waits to see the market impact of Apple’s Vision Pro.

Bigscreen Launches Beyond Headset

Image courtesy Bigscreen
The News

The PC VR headset Bigscreen Beyond launched in 2023 with its size, weight, and custom-fit as a major differentiator compared to what else is available in the PC VR landscape. At $1,000 for the headset (not including controllers or tracking beacons), the headset is firmly geared toward hardcore VR users.

What it Means for 2024

Bigscreen Beyond is a fascinating experiment that’s worth watching in 2024. For one, it’s the first major headset to offer a completely custom-fit facepad and IPD adjustment for every customer. And its focus on minimizing size and weight shows what’s possible with the VR headset form-factor today (and what tradeoffs it takes to get there).

Moreover, Bigscreen Beyond stands to answer an important question: is the market of PC VR users still large enough to support a company making a high-end dedicated PC VR headset? If Bigscreen can subsist on the demand for tethered PC VR headsets as it stands today, it will be proof that PC VR can sustain itself as an enthusiast-driven niche within the increasingly standalone-dominated XR market.

Roblox, Assassin’s Creed, & Asgard’s Wrath 2 Launch on Quest

Image courtesy Meta
The News

Despite being the XR market’s dominant content platform, Meta is still struggling to get a critical mass of content into the store to attract and retain a mainstream VR audience. 2023 saw the launch of Roblox, Assassin’s Creed, and Asgard’s Wrath 2, which are moving things in the right direction.

What it Means for 2024

Roblox is an undeniable force in social and UGC gaming. It has quietly offered PC VR support for years, but that didn’t seem to find much traction (perhaps a demographic mismatch between PC VR players and Roblox players). But in 2023 the company revamped its VR support and brought it to Quest, making VR content on Roblox much more accessible.

It’s unclear how much VR usage Roblox is actually seeing, but simply having the name of the platform in the Quest content library is significant considering the platform plays in the same weight class as the likes of Fortnite.

And Meta added another well-known name to its library in 2023: Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR, which brings the core gameplay from the storied franchise to VR in a relatively successful way, and marks Ubisoft’s return to VR game development after several early attempts.

Though much less recognizable outside of the VR space, Meta also released Asgard’s Wrath 2, which many feel is the first Quest game to have the scope of a major AAA non-VR game.

These three heavy hitters certainly bolster the Quest library when it comes to content you can really sink your teeth into. But I’m not seeing evidence that Meta will solve its content volume issue in 2024—which is the need for a consistent pipeline of attractive content to keep people coming back to their headset and to attract new users.

ByteDance Wavering on Pico Commitment

Image courtesy Pico Interactive
The News

TikTok parent company ByteDance bought VR headset maker Pico back in 2021, ostensibly to compete with Meta in the growing XR space. But not more than two and a half years later the company is reportedly laying off hundreds of its staff as it pivots its strategy.

What it Means for 2024

Pico was seemingly right on the cusp of breaking into the consumer standalone VR headset market as a serious alternative to Quest. With decent hardware and an increasingly competitive content library, the company seemed poised to launch its latest headset in the US to compete head-on with Meta. But for some reason that never happened.

ByteDance claims it’s still committed to XR and Pico. If that’s true, at a minimum we’re looking at a serious reboot of its strategy that will take time to unfold. Similar to Meta, ByteDance will likely hold off on making any major moves in XR before seeing what impact Apple Vision Pro has on the market.

Meta Launches Quest 3, but Quest 2 Leads on Holiday Sales

Based on images courtesy Meta
The News

Meta’s latest headset, Quest 3, launched this year to generally favorable reviews. But as ever, the company keeps improving its hardware while not doing much to move the platform’s core UX in a positive direction. Just like Quest Pro before it, Quest 3 was marketed with a big emphasis on its mixed reality capabilities, but it has no killer apps or even core first-party software that takes advantage of it.

The price of Quest 2 has had quite a journey over the course of its three years of life so far. The base model originally launched at $300 in 2020, and its price was later raised to $400 in 2022. Then in 2023 it the price returned to $300. And in time for the holiday Meta dropped the price further still, down to $250.

Even at three years old, the quality of the hardware and content library has kept Quest 2 relevant, and bringing the price down to $250 makes the headset undoubtedly the best value as an entryway into VR.

And due to that practically unbeatable price, Quest 2 appears to have significantly outsold its newer and pricier sibling, Quest 3 (which starts at $500). Signals from Amazon suggest Quest 2 may have outsold Quest 3 nearly 3:1, if not more.

What it Means for 2024

Quest 2 is more than three years old, but Meta has updated the headset with significant improvements over the course of its life—like improved tracking and faster performance. As far as we know, Quest 2 represents the vast majority of active VR headset usage in the market today.

An influx of hundreds of thousands of new Quest 2 users spurred on by holiday shopping and the price drop to $250 is likely going to extend the headset’s lifespan as developers continue to primarily target Quest 2 over Quest 3 throughout the course of 2024.

While selling headsets seems like a very good thing for Meta, at $250 the company is almost certainly losing money with each headset sold. The company needs people to not just buy, but to keep using their headsets in order to recoup on the subsidized hardware. Meta has struggled with this retention problem for a long time. Granted, Quest 2 is in a better place today from a performance and content standpoint than it was when it first launched. But I can’t say there’s been enough improvements to the overall UX and content pipeline to solve the retention issue.

SOUL COVENANT Review – Ineffectual Melee Sandwiched in a Very Skippable Story

The continued popularity of Quest 2 also presents another problem for Meta; the company seems all-in on mixed reality, and is pushing it as the key selling point for both Quest Pro and Quest 3. But with what’s likely to be a much larger market of Quest 2 users (which has barely passable mixed reality capabilities), developers have little reason to make big bets on mixed reality applications. And without a critical mass of killer apps for mixed reality, the purported value of MR on Quest Pro and Quest 3 falls short.

Between Quest 2, Quest Pro, and Quest 3, Meta has seemingly created something of a product positioning problem for itself. And while Apple Vision Pro can’t pounce on that opportunity (because of its $3,500 price), the clock is ticking for Meta to figure out exactly which direction it wants to push its users and developers.

Continue on Page 2: Samsung, Google, & Qualcomm’s Collaboration »

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • Very nice summary. I would add RayBan Meta smartglasses: they are good according to many reviews, and they just added integrated AI, which is very cool (but scary from the privacy side)

  • ViRGiN

    > HTC launched its first real competitor to Meta’s Quest line

    • Ben Lang

      In the sense that it was a 6DOF headset with controllers that played some of the same game. Prior to that, Vive Flow was trying to be something else.

  • kool

    Quest didn’t respect the console pipeline. It’s only been out 3 years of course it’s still selling. You should space your products 4years apart to complete the cycle. It should have been quest 2 for 2years then quest pro and quest slim the last year to allow late comers in. If quest 3 had launched this year it would have had more games at launch and some attention after apple launched it at device. Sony needs to show gamers what they have badly and sooner than later astrobot and Wipeout will do for now but they need at least 5 more aaa to gain momentum. Pcvr is finally getting better support with uevr but they still have a ways to go to build vr emulator for all games, honestly idk what pc gamers want they buy quest to play pcvr so let’s see what happens.

  • Octogod

    Purely from the perspective of the company’s other activities, Meta has yet to find real mainstream traction with its XR products.

    Meta has sold well over 20,000,000 headsets in three years. This beats Xbox and Xbox X/S, and (after this holiday) likely on par with the Nintendo 64. It would be in the top twenty game consoles sold of all time.

    To put this in context, the first iPhone sold 6m in the first year. In three years, all iPhones sold 26m. Quest sold right in that same range.

    • Ben Lang

      Units don’t equal traction.

      Gear VR moved millions of units and was disbanded.

      Kinnect moved tens of millions of units and was disbanded.

      The question is: how many headsets are actually being used on a regular basis? Even though it is the dominant one in XR, Quest is by most measures still a small marketplace that not yet self-sustaining.

      • Octogod

        Units are always the best indicator of traction for tech products. To ignore them is to make up an arbitrary metric unused by the tech industry or the market for decades.

        That said, it’s fine to focus towards other metrics of success. if your chosen metric is weekly or monthly active users, then what are you comparing this against? Console? Mobile? Social? And if so, what are those values? My point being, you can’t make a data argument with no data.

        If it’s revenue, and you state that Q4 is the brightest, then cropping data collection in the summer will make the numbers look like a drop in revenue. When 2023 financial release, we can watch the numbers go up and learn why charts are compared at equal timeframes.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          50mn+ Google Cardboard were distributed, so it must be the most successful VR platform ever. If not, unit numbers must be pretty useless.

          You compare to something similar. So you don’t compare Q3/23 to Q4/23, but Q4/22 to Q4/23. Or you divide the reported total revenue of games sold through the number of devices sold, and end up with more than twice the numbers of games sold for each PS4 compared to Quest 2. Obviously comparing game sales directly makes little sense with hugely different user bases, so you have to find a way to make them comparable, like looking at game sales per device.

          Unfortunately companies don’t release a lot of useful information, so there is always a risk in getting things wrong. Ideally one compares different sources, and for a long time the yearly Quest sales cycle was visible in not only Meta’s quarterly numbers, but also activity on Steam, which is about 50% Quest, and also the number of new reviews for top 20 apps on the Quest store.

          It’s fair to assume that if three different data sources show very similarly repeating curves, these are real trends, not just some artifacts due to improper use of metrics. And you can literally see the numbers jump up after Christmas and then a almost similar drop about four months later in several years. Which is why looking at active users is so important.

          • Octogod

            No one is comparing a <$10 toy where all apps are free to $300 tech devices where most apps cost money. If they are, they're either disingenuous or stupid.

            Active users or time on device isn't reported, which is why sales of hardware is the only consistent public data point.

            Active users is an ideal goal, but it's one guaranteed to lose on. Device growth though? That is one that is possible to beat consoles in the next three years.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            – I bought more Cardboard apps than the average Quest user buys Quest games. A significant number of (younger) Quest owners seem to never buy apps, playing mostly Gorilla Tag and other free games. In surveys 26% of US teens say they already own a VR HMD. Checked against Quest sales, this group makes up >75% of all Quest owners. The same survey now asks about VR use every six months, with reported 5% daily, 12% weekly, 34% monthly, and 48% less than monthly or never using their HMD, and activity numbers falling from survey to survey.

            – Sales of hardware usually isn’t reported either and therefore no public data point. Estimates and upper limits had to be calculated from quarterly MRL revenue, Quest recall numbers, leaks and Qualcomm PR blunders. For active user counts we have relied on cross-referencing different sources like Steam hardware survey, review counts on Quest Store and Steam, concurrent VR user counts and occasionally accumulative Quest store numbers from Meta. We also KNOW that Quest 1/2 had 6.37mn monthly active users in 2022-10 from internal Meta memos leaked to the WSJ, which meant that only 37% of all sold Quest were still in use during that month.

            – In late 2021 Resolution Games presented an estimate of 5mn active users across all VR platforms, based on the usage statistics they saw in their own 10+ VR games published on Quest, PSVR and PCVR. This led to an uproar from VR users claiming that the numbers must be much higher due to much higher unit sales for VR HMDs, but in the end the numbers from Resolution Games proved to be astonishingly close to what could be derived from other data sources referencing completely different aspects of the market.

            – A major requirement for platform growth is more software, which will only be developed if it sells enough copies, and only active users buy software. Which is why developers don’t care about the about 12.5mn Quest 2 sold that apparently only collect dust. They only care about the remaining active users. It doesn’t really help that millions of Quest 2 are given away each Christmas as presents, when the vast majority of users stop using the HMD they didn’t pay for themselves after about 3-4 months with very few apps bought. Which is why the active user number is so important, even if difficult to establish with a large margin of error. Statistics based on cross referencing multiple independent sources is far from perfect, but still way more reliable than someone “believing” in the success of VR just guessing based or making unverified assumptions about the relation between unit sales and active users that turn out to not match reality.

          • Octogod

            * Yes, Cardboard apps were free to $2. Number of apps means nothing.

            * Quest users spend half a billion plus a year on games for the past three years.

            * Yes, the demographic is younger and younger people don’t buy games, they get them free and use microtransactions. As a major report stated last month, the leading game purchase was digital currency or subscriptions, not games. This is not unique to Quest.

            * Sales of hardware is reported on by the HMD vendor. So is number of chips sold by Qualcomm. These are public companies so they share numbers.

            * 37% of sold devices being active is astonishingly high for Quest. It would blow every other HMD out of the water by double, easily.

            * None of what you’re saying matches the publicly reported revenue data from Meta.

            * The verified source I have is the deposit from Meta larger than your salary that comes in each month. :)

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You’re trying really hard to define Cardboard out of existence, but it had a lot of hype going for it from 2014-2016. And no, apps didn’t go for free to USD 2. I don’t think I payed more than USD 4.99 for any of my apps, but e.g. Mattel had released their own “View-Master VR” cardboard clone and sold matching “reels” on the play store, each for USD 14.99 featuring three different VR environments. They actually sold plastic reels in toy stores for grandparents to give out as presents, but those were basically just play store coupons.

            Others tried to offer “professional” apps, similar to those available on App lab for hundreds of dollars. They just all died with dropping interest and Google abandoning the platform, though there are still holdouts like iVRy for using a phone as a Steam VR streaming HMD, now even capable of 6DoF on ARKit/ARCore capable smartphones.

            No doubt Quest is doing better and making more money, not only relative to Cardboard, but to other existing VR platforms too. So yes, if you compare a 37% Quest retention rate to what is probably a 0.01% retention rate on Cardboard, that’s phenomenal. Obviously 37% is not quite so phenomenal compared to something like a PS4 or Steamdeck, or half a billion a year compared to Apple generating about USD 100bn revenue a year just from mobile games on their App Store. And you were the one that started comparing Quest to Xbox and iPhone sales, so we’re talking gaming devices, not just VR.

            And please point out where Meta has ever reported hardware sales, esp. in units, other than the two display boards hanging in a coffee shop during a press conference that listed the exact production numbers of DK1 and DK2. And which “publicly reported revenue data from Meta” my numbers supposed don’t match. We do all these cross-referencing only because there is a lack of official data, so you just claiming that the results don’t match official data, but not providing a source after I wrote it doesn’t exist isn’t particularly useful. And I’d really like to see these numbers, as it would save me a lot of time/math.

          • Octogod

            As someone who made many Cardboard apps, you’re not correct on facts. Cardboard didn’t have hype, it had accessibility due to low cost, made by Google to purposefully torpedo VR as a low cost gimmick. And it worked. The low cost hardware with mostly free apps was the reason. Anyone who had paid apps died, including the View-Master line which was quickly discounted (I have the whole set). When the cuteness wore off it died very fast. It was the single most damaging possible launch for VR.

            The contrast here is that there is an economy on Quest. This is one which developers can survive by making software, which has never happened before in the history of VR. Most developers who worked on Cardboard or Rift games left the industry. Hell, even Insomniac lost $20m+ on their VR apps in the Rift days.

            You can’t compare phones or social media companies to VR. That’s my entire point. They’re a different category and unique to the entire history of tech, but any tech hardware specifically designed to play games seems more valid. So, Quest beat Xbox X/S and matches Gamecube. Not bad.

            You can’t link to sources here, but Road to VR reported the numbers in March. Very easy.

            If you want to do the math, you can compare this to their public reported revenue numbers and figure out EXACTLY how many HMDs are sold each quarter in that period and for future quarters.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            The link argument is just a lame excuse for not having sources I’ve heard a thousand times. It’s trivial to provide links, you can replace the dot in the URL with an underscore, you can provide the title of articles and the date, so they can be googled, or just provide a list of specific keywords or an exact quote from the article that can be searched for and result in the article as the first hit.

            made by Google to purposefully torpedo VR as a low cost gimmic

            There is ignorant “Cardboard poisoning the well” nonsense, and then there is utterly insane “intentionally torpedoing VR” conspiracy theory as the next level of twisting history to whatever fits your argument.

          • Octogod

            There are so many logical flaws in your thinking you resort to all of them in one message. Congrats.

            Again, the blog was on RtoVR in March. Very easy to find.

            When you release a $5 product and convince people they shouldn’t buy a $1,000 product, it works at satiating demand. As someone who demoed to tens of thousands, most people felt they’d tried VR when they’d had a cardboard, which was wildly incorrect. It took Google leaving the industry for VR to begin to thrive.

            Labeling things “conspiracy theory” when you don’t like them continues to show the quality of your work.

  • xyzs

    I have big hopes regarding the Apple Vision Pro.
    Finger crossed it will kick the XR trend a lot, and drive tech improvements through competition, interest from the mass and reputation.

    4K RGB OLED screens need to become a new standard, just like having more than full HD phone screens became the norm since Apple made their retina iPhones.
    And standalone graphics need to go from Meta Game Cube to something that is truly enticing for 2024.
    Eye tracking needs to become a standard, not a nice to have option.
    Friction needs to decrease a ton.
    Form factor and weight need to shrink a ton.


    I hope 2024 will be less lame than 2022/2023.

  • JB1968

    The big truth and also irony in this very good article is that Meta not only distorted the VR market for competition (with Q2 price dumping) but also shot yourself in the legs by releasing too many “upgraded” products(Qpro, Q3) with higher price than Q2. This all endagers the whole VR industry and also makes the VR section of Meta the biggest chunk of company financial debt. I can’t help myself but Meta is really the evil part of VR.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Well, I do not agree with the evil part: it is in Meta”s interest to grow the market, although you and I may question their strategy at times.
      But I downvoted you because I disagree with the console cycle part. AFAIK all games till run on Quest2, so it is better to consider the Quest 3 as a Pro model console or a “Quest 2.3”; somewhat better but runs the same games. With a console, many games no longer run on the previous model, but that is not the case here, so no break or major problem for Quest2 owners. The Quest 1 is now dropped for most support or upgrades – there is your console cycle. Contrast this to Sony not supporting PSVR 1 at all.

  • david vincent

    Who cares about Visio Pro ? UEVR is finally out, biggest VR event of 2023 !