AR Glasses Anchor Screens, But Price Tag Stings

Anchored screens on your face exist—but they cost $449 to start.

In hands-on testing, The Verge pitted Xreal and Viture’s latest AR glasses against each other, focusing on how well these “portable displays” actually work for gaming. The takeaway is blunt: 3DoF anchoring helps, but it won’t rescue AR glasses from their pricing or comfort quirks any time soon. The trio tested—Xreal’s 1S at $449, Xreal’s One Pro at $649, and Viture’s Beast at $549—proved there’s no single winner. Each model nails a couple of tasks, then stumbles on others, leaving buyers with a tight set of tradeoffs rather than a slam dunk.

The hardware reality is clear: these units are heavier and thicker than regular glasses. In the field, testers noted Xreal’s 1S as the lightest option at about 85 grams, with the One Pro at 91 grams and the Beast at 96 grams. The extra heft matters for long sessions, especially when you’re wearing anything over your ears for hours and moving from couch to chair to flight seat. Yet weight isn’t the only friction point. The core appeal here—using AR glasses as a portable display for handhelds like a Steam Deck or the rumored Switch 2—hinges on a simple, crowded promise: you get a big virtual screen that travels with you. The 3DoF (three degrees of freedom) feature is the standout differentiator. It lets the screen anchor in a fixed spot, rather than bobbing with every head shake, which testers found markedly improves usability for on-the-go gaming.

Still, the verdict on value is nuanced. The Verge emphasizes that paying a premium for AR glassware may not be worth it for most gamers today. The novelty of a big, private screen in a headset is compelling, but the hardware tradeoffs—bulk, comfort, and battery life unknowns in a lot of use cases—keep the category from feeling essential right now. The models tested each line up differently on comfort, sound quality, and ease of use, but none emerged as a universally compelling buy at the current price points.

Two practitioner-level takeaways jump out. First, comfort and fit are more than cosmetic; the small weight delta between 85 g and 96 g can influence long sessions in ways users notice, from nose bridge pressure to overall front-load on the temples. Second, 3DoF anchoring isn’t just a gimmick—it materially reduces on-screen wobble, which is a major nuisance when you’re trying to read game menus or line up shots in portable-mode play. However, that benefit matters far more if you’re scenarios like couch co-op or travel, not just couch-sitting console games. Third, the cost-to-feature ratio remains a sticking point; while the 3DoF feature is appealing, the incremental “worth it” value varies so much by user need that a single, strong recommendation is unlikely.

So who should buy, who should wait, and who should skip? If you’re a frequent traveler or someone who values a stable, anchored screen for on-the-go handheld gaming, these AR glasses can be a meaningful upgrade to your portable setup—provided you’re comfortable with the higher upfront price and the bulk that comes with current generations. If you want a low-cost upgrade or you’re mainly after a true, open-market VR experience, this category isn’t there yet. For mainstream gamers, the jump feels premature.

Buy if: you travel, you want a stable anchored screen for handheld gaming, and you’re prepared for premium pricing.

Wait if: you’re hoping for lighter hardware, better battery life, and a clearer sub-$500 value.

Skip if: you want a simple, sub-$1000-fee-free experience or you prioritize traditional, immersive VR or conventional portable monitors.

Sources

My dream pair of AR gaming glasses needs to have these nine features