It’s not a poor substitute - in a lot of ways it’s one of the best VR headsets you can get. Once you go wireless there’s no going back, and there are plenty of standalone games that don’t need great graphics to be fun.
I also don’t understand people’s aversion to Meta over Google, Amazon, etc. but that’s a personal choice.
> I also don’t understand people’s aversion to Meta over Google, Amazon, etc.
Objecting to Meta specifically here is a response to VR suggestions. The other two companies are irrelevant in this conversation because neither has a VR headset available for use (that I know of). It doesn't help that the Oculus Quest is the cheapest VR option out there, so it gets suggested every time the topic comes up, so those of us who prefer to avoid the three companies you mentioned tend to have a quick response ready.
What makes you say that? Whether or not I buy one has no bearing over how much computational power a device has: which is what makes it a poor substitute.
Are you arguing that standalone headsets are not poor substitutes? For that to be the case they would have to do things like be able to play Half Life Alyx at acceptable visual fidelity.
I'm arguing that you've made a pointless contribution by commenting on something you won't have in your home on principle; it speaks to a lack of experience and/or an evangelistic dismissal that disqualifies you from a reasonably impartial assessment. That you are also technically wrong is secondary.
Yes or no: can a standalone headset play games like a PC-connected headset can? If yes, it is not a poor substitute. If no, then it is a poor substitute. This is the dichotomy I established with my comment.
