>>353632503
>Would that kind of low-end-PCVR tier standalone experience be enough of a selling point to justify development cost instead of a simple wireless Index?
No, which is exactly why I don't think they're using the hardware that they already said wasn't good enough for VR.
>>353637529
>How is that even relevant?
It isn't, and I shouldn't have even bothered bringing it up.
>can suddenly run games at 5 times the resolution
That's not what I was trying to imply, and what I should've said was that I don't think Android is inherently better for VR, especially when you're working with significantly less raw power.
>Right now it seems to be a foregone conclusion that any standalone headset that Valve makes would have Quest 1 graphics at an even lower resolution at best.
It seems to me that whatever hardware they're actually using in the prototypes would at least put it on par with the Quest 2. I can't see why they'd even be working on something if they didn't think they can at least match the current gen competition.