Yup I completely agree with you. Quest 2 is an awesome game console because of the immersion. I expect AR to be as gimmick as it has been on smartphones (though I'll probably find a game or two that will be fun for few hours), but passthrough is a useful feature. My expectations on Quest 3 is exclusively better performance, to have a wider range of games.
I perfectly agree that the amount and quality games that can be squeezed on Quest 2's GPU is freaking awesome, but still PCs have better games, and I'm not just speaking of graphics. For instance "open world" games like Derail Valley doesn't seem possible when I see performance of Synthriderz on long "experiences". It looks like loading anything that isn't already in RAM is painful (which is weird for a unified memory architecture, but anyway)
If the AR on this headset is good, it could become the primary AR platform for devs/commercial use. If it's $500, that'd make it 7 times cheaper than the hololens.
Meh, commercial customers already had AR headsets and even at more expensive pinpoints those were still justifiable for business as they're tax write-offs anyway.
Also, I doubt Meta have a damn about commercial users as commercial users don't drive sales. Meta makes money on the Quest by selling you games on the Quest store. Commercial customers don't buy any games. The Quest 2 for business is 2x more expensive for commercial users.
I perfectly agree that the amount and quality games that can be squeezed on Quest 2's GPU is freaking awesome, but still PCs have better games, and I'm not just speaking of graphics. For instance "open world" games like Derail Valley doesn't seem possible when I see performance of Synthriderz on long "experiences". It looks like loading anything that isn't already in RAM is painful (which is weird for a unified memory architecture, but anyway)