HTC unveils $1,100 lightweight Vive XR Elite VR/AR headset

[Daniel Sims]

In brief: HTC teased its response to the Meta Quest Pro last month, and now it's taken the shroud off. The company's latest VR/AR headset, set to arrive in March, is similar to the competition but lighter, a few hundred dollars cheaper, and with a few unique features. HTC says it designed the Vive XR Elite to excel at productivity and entertainment.

Pre-orders are now open for HTC's Vive XR Elite headset, which launches in March for $1,100. It could offer users a lightweight alternative to the $1,500 Meta Quest Pro, with similar hardware, color pass-through functionality, and software support.

The XR Elite features four wide-FOV tracking cameras, a high-resolution RGB camera, and a depth sensor. At 1920 x 1920 per eye, HTC's new product has a slightly higher screen resolution than the Quest Pro. At 635g, the XR Elite weighs almost 100g less than Meta's flagship.

Other specs, like the 110-degree FOV, 90Hz maximum refresh rate, 128GB of storage, and 12GB of RAM, sit in line with the competition. HTC also stuck with the Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 – the same processor as the $400 Meta Quest 2.

One of the XR Elite's unique features is its approach to vision adjustment. HTC designed its "stepless" inter-pupillary tuning and adjustable diopters so all users could enjoy the headset without wearing glasses. Users can also detach and quickly swap the XR Elite's battery. One fully-charged battery should last around two hours, while an internal backup battery gives users extra time to replace the main one without shutting down. HTC plans to launch face-tracking and eye-tracking accessories for its headsets later this year.

Users can run PC VR software on the XR Elite through USB-C or Wi-Fi, or operate the headset alone with apps and games from HTC's Viveport platform. Pre-orders before February 15 include five Viveport games.

Although HTC's newest product compares favorably to the Quest Pro and Quest 2, it will likely soon have to compete with Meta's next headset, which will probably occupy the Quest 2's price point sometime this year. Sony's upcoming PlayStation VR2 may also be a factor to watch out for.

Sony's headset will require a PlayStation 5 console and will only play console games, so it won't directly compete with Meta and HTC, but its specs look impressive for $500. Its OLED displays will offer users 2000 x 2040 pixels per eye at a maximum 120Hz when it launches on February 22. Apple is also reportedly designing a VR/AR headset.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97186-htc-unveils-1100-lightweight-vive-xr-elite-vrar.html

 

[SirDigby]

I still don't think VR will ever reach the mainstream, and certainly not with costs like this. Very few pieces of media made for VR seem all that good.
I reckon the future will be more focused on AR which is still very early in its journey.

 

[emmzo]

Impressive, but it's very expansive. I think Oculus 2 had most sales, because it was cheap (400$) and people mainly used it for gaming. That's the recipe really, a cheap gaming gear and a cheap VR porn, other than that, like the infamous Metaverse, working on ten virtual monitors or other "brilliant" ideas involving a prolonged use of a screen strapped to your face and no fun are doomed. "But Metaverse is a lot of fun"... Stfu Zuckerberg.

 

[mcnabney]

Getting closer, but 4MP per eye is still going to be pixelly. Fine for AR but distinctly unsharp for VR. Probably the best they can do without the long cable to the expensive GPU. I am curious how running on wifi (streaming from PC) will do in the nausea category. That extra latency has got to hurt. Reproducing human visual acuity is going to require pretty close to 8K per eye. We are getting there, but not quite yet. Two discrete 35MP displays is going to require a ton of GPU power to get the color depth and frame rate required.

 

[VariableSpike]

Expensive, and still too low res, VR has some uses, but it needs to take another step in quality before it becomes good

 

[bviktor]

Remind me about PSVR2 being "DOA" and "overpriced".

 

[bviktor]

Getting closer, but 4MP per eye is still going to be pixelly. Fine for AR but distinctly unsharp for VR. Probably the best they can do without the long cable to the expensive GPU. I am curious how running on wifi (streaming from PC) will do in the nausea category. That extra latency has got to hurt. Reproducing human visual acuity is going to require pretty close to 8K per eye. We are getting there, but not quite yet. Two discrete 35MP displays is going to require a ton of GPU power to get the color depth and frame rate required.

If this is "unsharp" for you (How do you know? It's not even launched), then you're not adjusting your lenses properly, or you're not wearing appropriate eyeglasses.

This resolution is pretty good, the problem is lack of high fidelity content, not the lenses themselves. This was an apparent problem even on PSVR1 with 25% the pixels - the content just doesn't utilize the hardware to its full extent, they're just low effort tech demos at best, with Astro Bot being one of the very few counterexamples.

 

[Ashford]

I still don't think VR will ever reach the mainstream, and certainly not with costs like this. Very few pieces of media made for VR seem all that good.
I reckon the future will be more focused on AR which is still very early in its journey.

I'm not concerned with the cost as a factor long term, do you remember what stand alone DVD players used to cost? All you need to see is a first timers' reaction to something as simple as Beat Saber to know this will be big one day.

I do agree that AR will probably pick up faster due to business applications which are more "low hanging fruit" compared to VR.

 

[mcnabney]

If this is "unsharp" for you (How do you know? It's not even launched), then you're not adjusting your lenses properly, or you're not wearing appropriate eyeglasses.

This resolution is pretty good, the problem is lack of high fidelity content, not the lenses themselves. This was an apparent problem even on PSVR1 with 25% the pixels - the content just doesn't utilize the hardware to its full extent, they're just low effort tech demos at best, with Astro Bot being one of the very few counterexamples.

Simple math. Each eye sees what is essentially a square 1080p image using this product. Go sit in front of a 1080p monitor and put on a game. Now move your face close enough to the screen that you can't see much else except the screen. The pixels will be huge. A simple reference is that a 4K image will be tack-sharp when it occupies about 30 degrees of your vision. This VR product is only giving half that resolution to cover more than 3x the width. This reference makes a good case for why movies probably shouldn't go through the effort of pushing resolutions up to 8K. Very few want to get to so close to the screen to actually be able to see the detail that 8K provides. VR is different. VR needs to cover so much more of your vision to be effective.

 

[dangh]

I really hope psvr2 will get pc support. This one makes little sense for me.

 

[Tams80]

Simple math. Each eye sees what is essentially a square 1080p image using this product. Go sit in front of a 1080p monitor and put on a game. Now move your face close enough to the screen that you can't see much else except the screen. The pixels will be huge. A simple reference is that a 4K image will be tack-sharp when it occupies about 30 degrees of your vision. This VR product is only giving half that resolution to cover more than 3x the width. This reference makes a good case for why movies probably shouldn't go through the effort of pushing resolutions up to 8K. Very few want to get to so close to the screen to actually be able to see the detail that 8K provides. VR is different. VR needs to cover so much more of your vision to be effective.

For some people that's an issue. But I can have my eyes that close to a 1080p monitor and be fine. Sure, I can see the pixels, but they aren't 'huge' so I can ignore that the differentiation is there most of the time, especially if the display is changing.

 

[rodb31007]

Looks nice but I would try it first so I know if I am getting a good deal.

 

[mcnabney]

For some people that's an issue. But I can have my eyes that close to a 1080p monitor and be fine. Sure, I can see the pixels, but they aren't 'huge' so I can ignore that the differentiation is there most of the time, especially if the display is changing.

Because it looks like a screen that you play games on. VR is trying to create a believable virtual reality with settings and characters that don't look like something on a screen.

 

[Tams80]

Because it looks like a screen that you play games on. VR is trying to create a believable virtual reality with settings and characters that don't look like something on a screen.

I don't know why you for some reason can't accept other people being fine with things.

 

[Jrfeimst2]

Simple math. Each eye sees what is essentially a square 1080p image using this product. Go sit in front of a 1080p monitor and put on a game. Now move your face close enough to the screen that you can't see much else except the screen. The pixels will be huge. A simple reference is that a 4K image will be tack-sharp when it occupies about 30 degrees of your vision. This VR product is only giving half that resolution to cover more than 3x the width. This reference makes a good case for why movies probably shouldn't go through the effort of pushing resolutions up to 8K. Very few want to get to so close to the screen to actually be able to see the detail that 8K provides. VR is different. VR needs to cover so much more of your vision to be effective.

2K is plenty for each eye. I have messed around with a quest pro and the screen door effect is basically gone. Only anal people looking for it can see it. More pixels are always nice but the hardware to push it would be insane. An 8k headset would need a 4080/4090 and a 13th gen cpu to hit 90fps or higher. No way a stand-alone headset will have more than 2K per an eye for several years. And if they do the games would still run lower than the headset resolution. A lot of quest 2 games run lower than the native res.