Tested quest 3 the other day and the standout function of the pass thru for me was the ability to easily grab things (drink) and have it feel really easy and natural. It was so nice to be able to do tasks around my office without having to constantly take the headset off. It’s nowhere near perfect but it’s so much more usable than anything I’ve used so far.
I like that you mentioned doing the dishes, I just did that wearing the headset, did the diahes, and ate breakfast while watching RUclips videos. Family was like what are you wearing
I was skeptical about MR games until i tried a few. Surprisingly i found them more immersive than VR. That feeling of needing to be aware of the playspace boundary was gone, i was completely free to move around, sit on the couch, do whatever. I guess its up to developers to make compelling games that can think outside the box.
My exact thoughts. it's because MR is the opposite of VR. It brings the gaming elements to where you are and doesn't take you into the gaming elements. It's a damn marvel of technology
@@vinny3410 i just cant imagine AAA game like lone echo, and people paid 59$ just to see their room flying around into the space.. nah.. its stupid. ... wait maybe its kinda cool afterall gameplay might be fun but storywise is silly
That "Gateway Drug" feeling you describe at the end is the realest shit in the entire video. I got my Quest 3 today and using my hands to drag around RUclips videos in floating windows in my actual bedroom then picking up the controllers and being able to hop into a game like Pavlov is the kind of thing that I have dreamed about since I was a kid. I am MUCH more excited for the Apple Vision Pro now despite never being able to afford it at $3500. I bought an M1 Macbook specifically to use with the virtual workspace "Immersed" but honestly using it with the Quest 2 was truly painful for many reasons. The Quest 3 seems to have solved 90% of my gripes and imagining having an M2 chip built-in to one of these headsets and working natively with productivity apps has rekindled my excitement for this industry to the same levels it was at during the Rift DK1 days. For me so far, Quest 3 is the first headset I would be able to recommend to my normie friends with no need to say "yeah but there's this one weird kink that you'll have to ignore". I really hope this headset drives retention and encourages software developers to start taking VR seriously again!
I totally agree. Very excited to see how Mixed Reality evolves in the future. I think the end-game potential of mixed reality is much higher than people expect, in an exciting way, due to the 3D world element that hasn't fully been tapped into. I always like to think that the "next gen" has to improve in all aspects--which makes me excited for the Quest 4, Quest 5, etc. Now let's just hope the industry stays alive to see these improvements.
Even as someone who doesn’t want to do flat in a HMD, I very much agree that low end hardware is not solving real problems and is heading in a pointless direction. Weird to think that if Meta pushed, they could make a Quest Pro 2 (more powerful processor, uOLED/pancake) that would be a lot of what we want Deckard hardware to be.
If they really are gonna can quest pro product line then it makes sense because it's redundant. The Quest 3 pretty much does almost everything better than it, and for cheaper.
The Quest Pro sold much less and was even less accessible to the average consumer than the Quest 3. The Quest 3 has a much better value. The mobile processor used is one of the most recent. The Quest headsets can already do PCVR. It is up to developers to make games for PCVR. People keep wanting all of these advanced features and constant upgrades, but they do not sell as well. Meta is doing the Nintendo approach and waiting to the tech becomes more affordable. It seems like a winning strategy for Nintendo and the Quest line. It isn't that people don't want these upgrades, but standalone VR and affordability are also important. These features will continue to come to future headsets.
Well said. Your insight, thoughtfulness, and commitment is truly appreciated. There are a lot of RUclipsrs out there, but your perspective on the headsets and the industry as a whole are a fresh and valuable time capsule to the current and future state of VR . I rarely post, but just a note of respect standing out among the rest.
How exactly? Do you mean in mixed reality games? Cause if it's full VR, you'd have to doubletap to passthrough and still touch the headset. What I want is bring something into VR. For example say I put my beer in a holder that has a checkerboard pattern. It would look for that pattern and draw a representation of my beer no matter what game I'm in. This could have been done on the quest2 even, color cameras wouldn't be needed. Maybe the depth sensor.
I love the quest 3. When I initially started to set it up I was so focused on the floating screens that I didn’t even realise it defaults to Mixed Reality. When I did finally realise my first thought was this is going to be so awesome in the Apple Vision Pro. So now I’m even more excited for that. Quest for gaming Vision Pro for everything else. It’s like the Quest is a gaming console and the Vision Pro is (ironically) a PC.
Bradley, keep in mind Oculus has always wanted an entry tier device marketed as a general media consumption device. The Oculus Go fit this bill and the Go went away because the deal with Xiaomi had issues. The Go's retention rate was actually over double what they were seeing for GearVR and from my limited talks with those in retail sales, it was not selling poorly. They would have had to find another manufacturer. They needed to thin the herd and get rid of 3DOF to push market original their all-in-one Quest line properly.... I expect they will market "Quest Lite" as a general media device, sell it without controllers and make it so it will not sync with aftermarket Meta controllers and will not run any VR app requiring controllers, so that never tries to be a gaming system. This is the right way to bring out a $199 general media VR device. The kind of thing you could sell in bulk to education centers, enterprise, retirement homes and maybe in air port lobby's, etc... Expanding use cases beyond gaming with an affordable headset is good for VR as long as the $199 device is clearly marketed and restricted to general media use cases and simple games that work with the hand interface.... As someone who's used VR to watch movies on a plane, I disagree very much with "toy for children". It's going to be a VR headset for people who don't give a shit about gaming. I really wish people would open their eyes and realize that potential is still very strong. According to Statista, Meta owns over 75% of the VR hardware market. Since launching Quest, meta has done everything they can to stomp out PC VR, not only killing Rift, but pulling all marketing from PC VR, not properly supporting it. They have zero interest. They only support PC VR through link and air link to try and pull in headset buyers who would otherwise buy a competitors product. When you have the company who owns 75% of the VR hardware market trying to kill PC VR that has had huge a huge negative impact on game studios wanting to invest in PC VR. Meta is responsible for the down turn. As for Quest 3, the 30% bump made such a difference for me it has me very excited about Vision Pro. Looking at total pixel count, Quest 2 had 7 megapixels, Quest 3 bumps it to 9 megapixels, but Vison Pro will have 23 megapixels... Quest 3's dual 4 megapixel color cameras do a usable job delivering grainy Mixed Reality, but I can't wait to see what Vision Pro's dual 12 megapixel color cameras are going to deliver to that 23 megapixel screen. Not to mention utilizing all Apple's camera AI tricks to correct contrast and oversaturation problems... When you go from a Quest 2 to Quest 3 and geek out over 30% increase in resolution, and so many have, I realize people are going to loose their shit when they see what Vision Pro is capable of and if you are a huge fan of XR technology might even be moved to tears at how good it is. At least that's what I heard from someone who did actually get to try Vision Pro at Apple and also bought a Quest 3 day one. "When you experience Mixed Reality THAT good, you immediately realize how foolish it is just think of these devices for gaming" When you hold up your Quest 3 and say "I want a better version of this". Well for the Mixed Reality use case for general media, Vision Pro is going to deliver that at a premium and once that bar for quality is set Meta will be on a mission to get the ballpark for their gaming devices. At 23 megapixel will the micro OLED screens, I expect Vision Pro is something you can use all day and the quality be so good, a lot of the time you will forget you'll not looking at real monitor displays. If the fidelity's is high enough for it not to be a gimmick, then you have to juxtapose the cost of the real displays it's replacing when considering its $3500 price point. When the fidelity of the Mixed Reality experience passes a certain threshold it goes from being a gimmick to solving real problems through augmented virtualization, we haven't had anything good enough to do that before Vision Pro. That's what people still don't get.
@sonicsnake44 this. It'll be awesome for the Apple fans that are already heavily invested in their products already, but when it launches I feel It'll be shit on even worse than meta was just based on price alone. Either way both devices have the same goals and it's exciting watching the early days of it all unfold. I started on a rift s and didn't expect anything like a quest 3 for like at least a decade
@@smittyvanjagermanjenson182 I think the people seeing extreme high and low price points on hardware as bad for VR have tunnel vision around the the type of devices we've had. Up to this point AR/MR headsets have been restricted to industrial devices, like the HoloLens. VR has been all about gaming. There is general media consumption happening on Quest, Vive, etc... but they are devices conceived by game industry minds and focused on that sector, you can watch Hulu on your Nintendo Switch but media consumption is maybe 2% of what people do with a Switch. With a Quest, you have Meta TV, Netflix, etc.. and this maybe makes up 15-20%. So we need devices that are designed specifically for non-gaming use cases that can support some casual gaming, that's what the Apple Vision Pro is aiming for with focus on the highest quality Mixed Reality money can buy at the consumer level. I do think with Quest Lite, Meta will be aiming to produce a VR device for that bottom of the barrel, betting that with higher resolution and 6DOF, a Oculus Go replacement can make it in 2024....It's all in the marketing... As long as it's marketed clearly to be distinct from Quest 3 and with focus on non-gaming apps, it will stay in its own lane... The big problem right now is that the VR gaming community is struggling to see a non-gaming focused headset being a success. Meanwhile, I think the rest of the world is waiting for a XR device to come to market that does focus on everything else, but they are going to be less forgiving and want something that "just works" with very high fidelity. That's why a company like Apple can build a Vision Pro and a company like Meta really can't get away it. If you're wealthy enough to buy a Rolex, you're not going to buy a Rolex made by a toy company. Meta doesn't have an ecosystem, brand recondition, brick and mortar stores, huge developer community to pull off making a Vision Pro a success in the same way Apple does The harsh reality is Meta is a social media company who's entire revenue stream flows from an ad business model, they've made no money on hardware, so every headset they've produced since buying Oculus has been an experiment. They made somewhere around net 24 billion last year and spent over 16 billion on Reality Labs. 97% of their revenue from ads, so they are taking 70% of the money made from ads on their social platforms and 100% funding VR/MR/AR development, with no sustainable model presented... Meanwhile Apple is a real computer hardware company making over 50% of their revenue from hardware. So one of these companies is real, the other basically an obsessed billionaire CEO determined to bring his vision to life, business model behind it and losses be damned. I love my Quest 3, but I have very, very little faith Meta will be building VR or AR headsets long term, because to do that their has to be a business model that works, and they don't have one and they need to sell like 20x more headsets and have very high retention to make it work... They aren't winning at that and instead they've successfully broken trust, fumbled hardware releases (Quest Pro), they don't know what they are doing and it's all Zuckerberg's play money. That's why people who understand business see them as a complete joke. They are the best at social media and very good at making money through ad sells, but when Tim Cook, etc.. look at Meta's Reality Labs adventures, they basically look at the endeavor like a successful actor humiliating themselves trying to make a music career leveraging the money they made off their acting success, but they aren't making any money off the music, it's all a pet project funded just because they have the deep pockets to do it, It's kind of pathetic. That is the state of Meta right now.
Insightful as always, and I agree on the Quest Lite. Why stagnate after doing all that work on pancake lenses and immense screen door effect reduction? And no controllers would be rough as well. People, especially those most likely to be using a $200 device, would probably want to play games. Why not just bump up to $300 and include controllers + other small improvements as a Quest 2 tier replacement?
I think they want to kinda keep it modular, as giving the entry level buyers more choice of how much they want to spend. On the other hand quest 3 should have came with the elite strap, with battery version being the only add on.
My hot take is Quest Light could be a great idea! Cut the passthrough altogether and make it lightweight and cheap. The biggest problem with Quest2 is not the resolution, it's the weight on your face. Getting the cost down would be also great for wide adoption. 500 is a lot for most people.
Thanks Brad I'm glad you took the time to do the video, it's good timing. It's interesting to think how far q3 software will improve from here also. Personally I am experiencing more grain effect in passthrough than I would have hoped and expected but other than that I am using Q3 alot at the moment and loving a more snappy response time.
I checked it out at Best Buy, TY BB! But I can almost predict the Q3 will show up on eBay first quarter 2024 in numbers...Holding off on the buy decision until Black Friday
I agree wholeheartedly. Meta and Zuck need to abandon the idea of Quest Lite and focus on releasing a Quest Pro 2- take the Quest 3 and ramp it up, add eye & face tracking, increase the passthrough resolution, and focus on comfort for long use sessions. You don’t need to redesign the controllers, keep the touch+ while you iron out their hand tracking over the long haul and by the time Apple Vision Pro comes out, Meta could have a comparable device for somewhere between 1.5 to 2k.
Quest 3 is amazing in my opinion. I have the quest 2 also and Q3 just does everything better. Watching movies, gaming, and MR is mind blowing to someone who’s never experienced this on other devices. This is just the beginning lifespan of the device so it’ll on get better. The only thing that I wish it had would be the Oled lenses for darker blacks.
completely ridiculous they leave out oled. The technology exists already, they are just trying to save money... on their flagship product?? Dissapointing, we're gonna have to wait another 3 years for the next Quest.
@@தமிழோன் It's not cost effective in regards to production, it's not just more expensive screens, it means a new design, more testing, new software versions, new production lines and part suppliers, etc, more people, more time, more things to go wrong, all adds up to a lot of money.
Q3 is so damn nice.. hard to imagine this level of progress back in the days of the Oculus rift, vive, etc, .. props to the technologist, engineers, programmers, keep it up. Thanks brad ❤️
Agreed. They don’t want to rehash all the VR hype from back in 2017 or whenever it was, when it was “put your phone in a box and strap it to your face and you get virtual reality!” A few months of hype that then completely disappears because it’s basically a novelty party trick but without any real substance to keep people involved. XR isn’t going to be really mainstream until it’s highly functional and intuitive and fits into something that looks like a pair or RayBans, so until then focus on making good quality products for a niche market that is into it.
Well said, extremely gratifying knowing that someone with your level of clout and reach has a firm understanding of where we are at in the cycle of XR/VR. Vision Pro is a hallmark for pushing the industry. The price is irrelevant, it’s getting it out there and pushing the field that is so critical at this stage of borderline collapse of industry particularly on the software side.
I’m not buying a bare bones VR headset. I want the best possible visual clarity, but it has to be focused on gaming. Not interested in Apple’s idea of virtual TV screens.
I totally agree, I hate the idea of a Quest Lite, if the retention for Q2 is low, this will not improve that situation. I had a Q1 and Q2, and now I have a Quest 3 now. I do think Q3 is a step forward and I am happy with it so far. I have seen the progression of the standalone headsets and I think that games and other uses will be better. I am surprised at how I don't think twice about walking around with the Q3 because of the pass-through improvement, and would never do it with the Q2. Also PCVR is playing much better with the Q3 as well. The only way I can see a Q-Lite working is if it is Q- for kids, let them play Roblox and Xbox games using a game controller instead of touch controllers. I would not (could not) pay for the Apple Reality but I do think it will give us a look at what to expect in the Q4 in three years, as it will have better optics and processor by then, The difference will be a better price and a much bigger ecosystem, so I will be happy to use my new Q3 until then.
Retention is low because there's no content. There's no content because 20M units sold sound a lot, but it's nowhere near PC, console and mobile gaming. No dev is rushing to the VR gold mine, there isn't any. If a Quest Lite is what's missing for Meta to actually expand sales worldwide and make actually relevant user numbers, I'm in. Not sure that's their goal, though.
@@skol_sem_som There is actually a good amount of content but a lot of it is not very good, this is true on all platforms, not just Meta. It also depends on if you limit the use to just games. I think a lot of people including those who have a Quest 2, do not use it for more than games. I don't go a day without using my Q2, and now that will be the case with the Quest 3. I use it for exercise, movies, and 360 experiences, oh and I also play games. Even though I am not that big into MR I am sure with development I will find a use case for it as well. I personally think the more the headset can do the better, this is why I think a strip-down version is a bad idea.
@@skol_sem_somi think vr dev is also do different from all other kinds of game development that people don't want to risk it all before we have the basics figured out
I would like to hear more about Quest 3 and PCVR gaming, for instance, if PCVR games look better on Quest 3 than on the Quest 2, and how much better does it look? Is it less blurry and sharper on the Quest 3? Can you see more detail? I'm curious about this because I play PCVR on the Quest 2 and I think it looks very nice on the Quest 2, so I want to know how much better it'll look on the Quest 3.
building low end devices for vr is a mistake in my opinion. The tech to price is not where it needs to be yet to make a good budget vr headset. Meta will just be hurting the industry further. It sucks that companies can't make a compelling device at a price people can afford. I think in a couple years things will look very different.
There are tens of thousands of players for population one and some of the other larger VR titles who play for hours and hours a day. That whole world and VR games having a chance for profit exists because of budget Quest(s)
True, cause then it could led to a future where everyone is using crappy devices that have all the potential to be so much more, but aren't because meta wants those numbers. They need to also come back to PCVR space, and strive to pack in as much tech as they can at a reasonable value point. $1500 subpar Quest Pro's and $3500 Vision Pro's aren't necessarily it either, but there's a nice middle in there somewhere.
"It sucks that companies can't make a compelling device at a price people can afford." If Quest 2 or 3 don’t fill that role, I don’t know which headset could…
Loving the Quest 3, but I wish you could place browser windows wherever you wanted instead of having 3 of them pinned to each other. Let me keep a screen in my living room and a screen in my Kitchen! The UX for flat media consumption in MR still has a long way to go.
"How can we make cars cheaper?" "No engine, no steering wheel, no windows; it will be so light you can just add a hole at the bottom and you walk with it on your shoulders." "But do you really think people will wanna buy it?" "Of course they will, it's cheaper!"
I was able to try MR on my Quest 3 for the first time today. When it first loaded up, I was a little... disappointed.. in the quality of the passthrough. I know this is beyond what's come before, but it still left me feeling a little disappointed. This is a fairly average room as far as lighting goes, what you'd typically find in most homes. An overhead light and a couple lamps. It seems like the quality appears to be considerably better if you can basically... nuke the room you're in and get those exposure values way up though. So if that's an option for someone, it does help. But anyway, as I said, I was fairly disappointed when I first opened it up and was looking around. Until the room mapping started on the First Encounters demo. Just watching the quest 3 overlay this virtual mesh onto objects around me was actually mind blowing. And once the tech demo started up, the quality of the passthrough cameras was the furthest thing from my mind. I was literally running around my kitchen trying to shoot all the fuzzballs. It felt like my first time in VR all over again, and this is coming from an Index. So while I don't think the passthrough right now is good enough for anything in day to day life, unless they're able to really improve things with software updates, I do love where it seems like it's headed if they can keep it up.
Also, this was my first quest product... Holy shit this strap is the worst thing I've ever put on my head... and I've worn kevlar helmets in the military. This thing physically hurts. But I'm waiting on the Bobo strap to finally become available
@@tal_os8148 I've heard that too. I can't imagine. It makes me think they purposely design these straps to be awful to force people to upgrade to the elite strap
You said everything very well. I thought I will disagree with you on the Quest Lite stuff, but you explained it in a way I cannot dislike haha. Makes sense and I see your point.
I think it makes a ton of sense to have a cheaper lineup just made for games and entertainment. The mainstream $500-1000 should be where they test new ideas and then have a basic gaming headset for $200-$300.
Blown away on my Quest 3, But I was coming off an Oculus Go which wasn't even a 6DOF headset. I already look forward to your Quest 4 leaks in future. :)
Yeah, you vocalized all my issues with the Quest Lite. Meta's already positioned themselves as the "more accessible" option for VR, but going backwards just to try to make an even more accessible hardware doesn't work in their wheelhouse. There's so much interesting hardware and software with the Quest 3 that they'd be abandoning to make the modern equivalent of GearVR or Oculus Go. Meta's not at the point where they could make streamlined entry level models (the iPhone SEs/Galaxy A Series equivalents) because those entry level models need a baseline of usability. One that this headset won't have without a depth sensor, pancake lenses, or color passthrough. If the Quest 2's are out there collecting dust because they're too rudimentary, there'll be even MORE Quest 2.5's (because that's what this is) collecting dust.
But they aren't abandoning it. The quest lite is the "bare minimum" device, worse hardware, but also more room for software improvements and collected user feed back(helping build a better experience for all users). I feel like I'll always be on the mid tier quest, as the lite is weak and the pro, while cool, seems unnecessary if it means a new mid level quest is due the following year
The upgrade for balanced weight, increased sweet spot area, lens clarity and lower wifi6e latency for wireless PCVR is a game changer for me. I am not a standone Quest user, I am all in for wireless PCVR and the Quest 3 has become the best for wireless PCVR among my VR headsets
Gradual improvement forward to building a new standard. I don't like their mixed reality nor do I use it. I use it like I use my tablet in bed watching TV or browsing the internet.
Will there be a Quest 3 pro version? I don't know if I should wait to see if a pro version will come out or if I should just buy the Quest 3 as it is and jump into the metaverse
I actually do like flat gamming and stereo optic movies quite a lot in VR. It would be nice to setup 3d animation scenes in VR for working. But again the software needs more advancement.
I guess it really is going to come down to Quest 3 sales. If people aren't buying because of the price then it makes perfect sense for a Quest Lite. People like me who haven't tried modern VR aren't going to care about Quest 2 Fresnel vs Quest 3 pancake lenses.
Hi Brad, I am very much in agreement with your points. I think the main reason why so many of these applications feel like demos is because there is a focus on using the controller as a basis for immersion. Focusing on the controller as the immersion point and not focusing on the content, or having the content focus on the interactivity of the controller (including your hands via hand tracking) as the basis for immersion, is putting the cart before the horse and creating retention issues. As much as I think its cool to, say, stack blocks in a "mixed reality" world, at the end of the day, I am stacking blocks and I can only stack so many blocks until I lose my own blocks. I get why Meta is trying to do this - capture as big of market share as possible - but it can also leave customer needs uncatered for. Mixed Reality as a concept - it really should be distinctly split between AR and VR. 1. VR is going to be for gaming enthusiasts - Really need foveated rendering, eye tracking, 35 PPD and above and using an existing configuration like a gamepad (including steam deck)/keyboard & mouse with stereoscopic gaming on a big virtual screen. The headset will be comparatively a little chunkier than an AR counterpart, but will be mainly for at home use. Maybe some portability, but only as a novelty - primary use is to have epic gaming experience at home, and being able to play all favourite games in stereoscopic 3d. Being able to play, for example, my entire steam library on a high fidelity headset removes the obstacle of having native VR content and working around the onerous requirements of a new virtual controller/hand tracking etc. Having all my steam library games to play in VR automatically solves the problem of lack of VR content and brings us one step closer to being more immersed in the virtual world. 2. AR has to be pretty much something like the meta rayban/snap spectacles kind of thing - small cameras with cool interactive games to play, informs me about where I am, what i'm looking at, etc. Good battery life, built in mic to talk to ppl, a button to record/snap photos/videos, doesn't have to be super high fidelity, just a lot of fun, and immerses me more in the real world. Having a device trying to do both is not going to do either well and won't fit any target market. Like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. What is at risk is trying to do both with something like the Quest 3 (based on how its marketed) - only to find that it does VR way better than AR. But, VR has no foveated rendering/eye tracking, and I suspect we are going to see that as the industry standard for PC VR solutions shortly. Then for AR - that no one wants to do only AR at home, they want to go outside, and no one is going to lug that chunky thing around on their head outside only to find its out of battery in 1.5 hours. When you try to capture as big an audience as possible, you might find that no one is happy with it, and I suspect this is going to happen for the Quest 3!
I paired my keyboard and mouse to the Quest 3 today and have this weird optimistic sensation about technology that I haven't had since the Ipad....staring at three open browsers on my device rn...they have something really good here, really really good. I hope that they don't forget about productivity bc in that sense, Apple will have an edge. And if the tech is good....I will let them take my money. Also thinking about the amount of devices these headsets can make obselete....the giant living room TV, gone, the labtop/tablet, no need, this will be more ergonomic in a few gens. Learning in VR/AR will be glorious....I want to read in VR so bad, this is really really close. I feel like this device just made a moment of silence happen among vr enthusiasts, we're kind of just looking at each other shocked, excited....asking, is it just me or did Meta finally deliver something special. Not THE device....but something that can get mainstream HOOKED on VR.
I 100% agree with your sentiments on this matter, I am a Quest pro user for wireless face tracked VRChat and the idea of moving backwards is troubling for sure, I have very little interest in the quest 3 due to it’s lack of face and eye tracking, so I just hope they will eventually do a refreshed version and bump up all the specs.
Funny, interesting thing is that my personal reason for poor retention is the amount of trouble shooting and preparation we have to do just to get it. Usually just issues with linking to steam, more recently quests link menu doesn’t work, so I have to go straight to steam vr, everything thakes forever to load, and if it does you have to cross your fingers you don’t have some random thing come up that you have to fix. Basically its just STILL a very buggy experience. Otherwise id be in br chat every day….
I totally agree, it definitely has gotten WAY better than when I had the rift cv1 and had to pull out a cable, open the software, probably redo the boundary bc the sensors got bumped etc. But there still needs to be more seamless interactions, especially when the act of putting on a headset requires more effort than ploping your butt down to play flat games
OMG.. I have to agreee a LOT. Both the Q1 and Q2 are SO unreliable and MOST of the time troubleshooting is pointless; its almost ALWAYS an update or several reboots and shit just starts to randomly work again. Most of the worst cases where I just give up playing for a week are because of random "LOST TRACKING" and the guardian system just goes to shit OUT OF NO WHERE, and you literally changed NOTHING about the room you play in with PLENTY OF LIGHT, all the cameras are clean, no Xmas lights around lol, ...those have NEVER fixed anything for me. ALWAYS had to wait for META to fix with another patch. I look at the whole VR industry like the first day's we had Window's operating system like Windows 95. Remember that shit (if your old enought lol)!? Used to get BSOD SEVERAL TIMES A DAY. The phrase "Not ready for Prime Time" came to mind back then, its basically the same with VR right now. NOT READY. Leave that shit in the oven to bake a couple more years and hopefully get the technology more reliable. In the meantime, its a fucking coin flip every day I go out to see if I an play Golf + LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
As a newbie (At 65!) I feel the 3 may have brought new vitality to headsets generally. Increased user take up will create new software demand to the point where these will become mainstream . They have the potential to augment training/education hugely, and other development niches will open up.
Dude/dudette! You absolutely need to have your own RUclips with your VR opinions or anything related to that. I think people would find it extra endearing due to your age alone, you would be extremely unique. There are few older flat screen gamers on youtube who do quite well for themselves, and all they do is play games, talk, and be older than your average gamer and we love them for it!
A high quality monitor and TV replacement is all I want. The Apple headset is the first device that seems to be truly capable of that but not for that price.
4:50 I think one of the main reasons for this is comfort. And Meta does not seem to care about that. I have been using my quest 2 at least once a week if not multiple times a week for years now, mostly in VR Chat. But I can only manage to because I have gotten accessories to make it comfortable. And im still using the quest 3 but its just not quite as comfortable.
I experienced the opposite by mistake. Apparently the glasses spacer solved a lot of the comfort issues, not knowing this before hand and being a glasses wearer, I wore the quest 3 for like 8 hours (few charging breaks) with out a complaint. The strap could use an upgrade, but it's comfortable enough for me until I see the right third-party straps coming
Quest 3 is the first headset I'd feel comfortable recommending to people who've never tried VR. Pancake lens, 120hz, slimmer profile solved the 3 big showstoppers for whipping out the VR at a party.
With regards to the upcoming cheaper quest model, I don't know if I would call it 'going back' as much as I would want to call it a movement in a direction that aims to maximize accessibility, thereby being a kind of technological improvement that isn't strictly 'technological'. I'd be floored if this style of headset were brushing shoulders with the likes of the HTC Vive back in 2016. What Meta has yet to do is figure out how to keep all of this prospectively obsolescent tech from ending up in a landfill as they are building their empire.
I remember Zuck mentioned about prices of upcoming Quest 3 to be $300, $400 and $500. Clearly he changed his mind, afterall he is a businessman not visionary man. I actually think that Meta should price Quest 3 at $399 for 128GB and $499 for 512GB. It would be lower entry price point with big incentives for power users to buy 512GB version.
The Q3 is fantastic and a watershed moment for standalone vr/ar. I've practically been living in mine since launch day. Feels like turning on my ps1 back in the day as a kid❤ Ps, aren't they rumoured to be making a 2k highend version coming as well as the low end one coming 2025?
I agree with your points. And now, only having a smartphone, a Quest 2 and a stationary PC, the Quest 3 surely seems attractive. But I can barely afford it and I want my next headset to also be my monitor replacement and laptop substitute (together with a bluetooth keyboard). So it may be better to wait and save up for Decard? Maybe preordering Slime VR now, before it gets more expensive? But then again, if we will still have to wait for the Deckard more than a year, I would love to have an upgrade sooner... Advise me master! Deckard when?!
One thing about mixed reality no one discusses is that it may open the world of exercise and the like, to those who feel uncomfortable and unbalanced with immersive VR. To be able to finally get your significant other to use the exercise programs in mixed reality mode, may give them enough of an anchor to their real world that they will pick it up and use it. It also may help seniors become more engaged and hence, active.
Brad did you watch those developer sessions about visionOS? I’m probably not gonna have the vision pro for money reasons, but I was really impressed at how polished the ui experience seem to be in headset, the sessions on the principles of spatial design and considerations for vision comfort really showed me their attention to detail and I got to understand a bit of the thought process behind the apple engineers and their choices, if the vision pro ships with m2 and not m3 I think it won’t be too capable for games anyway, but as a platform for use outside of gaming it seems very polished, although might seem to controled and limited to enthusiasts and modders
I totally get it, I have a Quest2 because the price was low enough I could swallow it knowing that it's going to sit quietly charging for most of it's life. The kids use it, I don't. I lost interest after trying to use passthrough but I couldn't even see my physical keyboard properly. If I could just lean over and pick up a headset, wear it to do some flatland 'stuff' (programming, design work etc) and then put it back again I'd be using it every day but with the way the physical interaction is it's just not feasible. The distance between 'here' and 'there' is too far. Personally I'm most excited about the possibilities from the Beyond (not the actual Beyond, but what it's offering as a potential), my personal daily driver for a desktop is my SteamDeck, if I had something like a SteamDeck I could use for normal browsing, coding, design, terminal etc and when I needed to I could just throw on the headset for that deeper dive into things, hell yeah, that's my nirvana. If the SteamDeck could connect to the Beyond, just for flatland work, my god...
I agree, better to show people the best something can become and work to decrease the price than to compromise on features just release something as cheap as possible.
I'm not a teen, I'm 60. I've had VR since 2017, I played it a lot for 3 years, now I play it once a week or so. I have Pimax 8KX and PSVR2, what I lack is time to play as much as I would like. 10 to 12 hour work days, in consulting Engineering, looking at screens, means I really only feel like playing on weekends. I also ride motorcycles and I paint minis for table top gaming, where the games take 4 hrs or so, and painting a model can take 4 to 8 hrs, with hundreds of unpainted models (and 1,000's of painted ones). Finding time to play is not easy. I'm not getting a Quest 3, first it is too expensive considering I have PCVR and PSVR2, I don't play standalone. I don't support Meta trying to make games exclusive to there platform. I might consider it in the future, but I think I'm better waiting to 2024/25 to see what comes out.
My friend Pico 4 is the first hmd that got me into VR. Decided to get quest 3 for myself. The pancakes and the 2000p+ res must be the minimum standard. It is a whole new world, I don't like non competitive shooters but hoping in PCVR just reloading a gun while fighting zombies I felt fear and pressure like never before in non competitive games! :D
@@SadlyItsBradley Oh, sadlyItsBradley, so kind and so true, Your videos bring me joy, it's plain to view. Your wit and charm, your humor so bright, Fill my days with warmth, like a beacon of light. From "Minecraft" to "Among Us" galore, You make me laugh 'til my sides are sore. Your edits are slick, your commentary's gold, You're a RUclipsr with a heart of gold. So here's to you, sadlyItsBradley dear, May your channel continue to grow and cheer. For you're a RUclipsr we all adore, And your love for gaming, we all adore.
Great video Brad, always love to hear your thoughts. I'm really starting to appreciate Quest 3 now, but also totally want a Quest 3 Pro rather than this budget version. I hope Meta will offer something, I'm sure they will want to compete with Apple at the highend, maybe with a headset around the $2000 price mark.
@@aquaticborealis4877 It hasn't been abandoned, they initially said they had pushed it out to around 2026 because they wanted the mobile tech to get good enough to run their photorealistic codec avatars, then Boz hinted one was in the works sooner than that. Most recently there was talking they are planning a Quest 4 Pro to release in 2025. But, yes the line will absolutely continue. They aren't goint to allow Apple uncontested dominance of the emerging enterprise/professional market, they will certainly put something out to compete with it. I don't think it will be before 2025 though, as the current XR2 Gen 2 chip in the Quest 3 obviously won't be good enough to compete with Apple at all for passthrugh mixed reality. I have the Quest Pro as well and the Quest 3 MR is better, but not much better, it kind of looks like a good software update of the Pro's passthrough rather than a next generation leap. Pro 2 would need to be way better than Quest 3 at mixed reality to justify its high price so I suspect we will be waiting 18 to 24 months.
I was trying to figure out the target audience for the leaked specs and the only conclusion I can come up with is that Lite will be an entry level social media device. Mixed reality, controllers and worse visuals don't really matter in that space, but the price does. So, Horizon, Teams integration, VR Chat...
I agree, well said! Reality is the numbers aren't going to be huge compared to what is coming in the future. It's a cheap tactic to try to get more kids in the short term, but ultimately, like you said, we're actually finally so close to the sort of quality that the mainstream *actually wants* . So let's not go backwards and muddy the waters of what is expected with VR, let's continue to push forward and get to that level of tech quickly where we can finally say *"this is what you want"* Meta can do that for less than $3500. I imagine a Quest Pro 2 at $1500 could be that device. Let's do it now! Quest 3 is the gateway drug that proves what's possible, Quest Pro 2 *is* the device that truly delivers it. Done. Really don't need to continue this google cardboard mentality anymore. We're way past that now and on the cusp of getting this whole XR thing to actually work.
well said! Quest Pro 2 and they should TOTALLY rip off the "Glance and Pinch" from the Apple Vision Pro lmao! That shit is fucking BRIALLIANT! It's like they invented the mouse all over again, but for "Spatial Computing"
@@WigganNuGMeta already had the pinch, and eye tracked menu browsing has already existed for awhile now and is present in some PSVR2 games. Apple didn't invent it, but they are putting it all together in a neat seamless package, which is right is par with Apple's strategy for the past decade. Apple doesn't innovate, they streamline
Well said Brad. Meta will cause an even bigger retention problem if they introduce a minimal device. People will try their friends Quest 3 then buy, or grandma will unwittingly buy them a Quest lite and it will be tossed in a closet within weeks. After 10(ish) years, Meta still don't understand who their customers are....and I thought they were supposed to be social experts?! Or are they just trying to give a middle finger to apple by making a cheaper useful device. But, they should focus on their customers, not compete with their peers if they want to be successful.
They're just going for multiple market share. Lower end and mid end. Apple taking very high end. This is expected. Right now, lower end is quest 2 and mid is quest 3, they are just swapping quest 2 for this newer one to have a new item to sell. It sounds very similar to quest 2 anyways with the frenel lenses and whats been discussed so far.
@@ryanguy6789 Yeah. Sure. I can imagine a replacement for Quest 2 for a $200 - $300 price point, but it would have to have similar or better features than Quest 2 as four years will have passed since Quest 2 launch. I am concerned they will just knock out a HMD with old tech does not advance MR or VR. They shouldn't race to the bottom just because they can or just to create a low end portfolio to rival apple. I think they would be more profitable making meaningful, useful products and it will be better for the industry in the long run. Trying a low end device might give some people an appetite for a higher end device, which I am all for, but all I can forsee are more unused devices because people will be disappointed with the low end tech.
Rift S on a high end system is still high end lol. PCVR driving (mod) communities. But it doesn't generate the bucks for meta directly, which is the actual problem. Also Meta doesn't compete with Steam in price for games and software. Only on exclusive AAA titles (Asgards Wrath). Still can't beat stereo HiRise imagery in VR. Need the view angle, need the res, the contrast, that's it.
They are just going for a mobile strategy of producing a flagship device, a mid-tier one and something entry level so they can capture customers at all levels and have them in the database. It's an age-old marketing strategy which is somewhat a necessary evil to keep the business afloat instead of relying only on enthusiasts that will generally never fully fund a business.
Mixed realty - use face recognition and display names next to people on the Ray-ban glasses. People who never remember names will buy them and retention will be off the charts.
MR absolutely has a lot of great use cases. Green screens about to get a lot of use in vr chat, and it's neat to throw a virtual screen over the tv. It's funny going back to around 4 years ago when flip up visors were all the rage, and now we're using passthrough in the same way just as a casual feature.
You are killing me. I'm trying so hard not to buy a Quest 3 yet!! All I want is VRChat and virtual desktops so I can do real software development work while inside VR.
I doubt Meta will actually scrap the Quest Pro lineup for real. My educated guess is they will eventually release another headset with the same DNA to push their hyper-realistic avatars, later down the line. They will just do so under a totally different name and look to avoid inheriting the bad rep of the Quest Pro. And perhaps, they will make it much more different to the Quest 3 and really target corporate use, this time... Including the price tag. For now, Meta is in a good position to lean back and observe what Apple is doing.
Agree entirely with Brad. It has been eating me up seeing Meta introduce a feature, and then take it away in a next device. We need a hardware base so developers are guaranteed what they build will be used in future devices.
If anything I want them to justify the Quest 3 launch price overtime, eg.) HD audio strap revision. I'd be fine with the Quest Lite if we reached a minimum baseline for the comfort, the audio, the visuals. But as of now... Does there really need to be a bracket below the Quest? At that point just call it the Oculus Go to avoid confusion.
I have a Quest 2 (and a Quest 1). The Quest Pro and the Apple headset are way out of my price range. Remember, salaries here in Europe are about half US salaries. How would it feel if you doubled the headset price in the US? What I want in my next headset are: pancake lenses, NOT Fresnel ones; significantly higher resolution (less screen door); battery at the back to counterbalance; probably faster processor; more memory and storage; less importantly, colour STEREO passthrough; For all these features I would happily pay a higher price, say 2 or 3 times the Quest 2 price.
Tbh, as soon as I heard the Quest 3 lite rumour, I assumed it would be a Quest 3 with all the MR stuff stripped back and be focused on people who just want to play games.
The reason I had my quest2 just laying around is handsdown because of the discomfort. Now I have the quest3 with elite battery strap and everything is different. comfort is way underrated
I feel like we are hitting some bottlenecks with battery on those things. I mean, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put some amazing cameras in those things, but how to power them? Battery can only last so long, and people complain every time the battery doesnt last 2hrs. One signature thing about Quest is the wireless experience. I don't know If i want to plug into a socket. We'll see what the future brings
You said we were tired about hearing about hardware but I actually love hearing about all the new VR headsets being released! Love seeing the tech progress.
The problem with VR is that you can't set it up in a store window and demonstrate it to the masses. On top of that people don't like having to wear anything on their head to get an experience. That was even a big problem with 3d TV's and movies. People hated those glasses. VR really seems to be something for a group of enthusiasts who like the tech and the experience, and who like to ride the wave of new developments. For me VR is a way to have these awesome experiences, and I want to go back to them over and over again. While many people acknowlegde that VR is an awesome experience, they don't feel drawn to actually go out and buy a headset themselves. My sisters kids really do enjoy VR from time to time, but they will never ask for the Quest 2 by themselves, They have their phone, the Switch, and a laptop to play with, and that's pretty much all they want and need. Anyway I think it's going to take some tinkering to make VR the big thing with the retention rates that compare to phone usage anytime soon. As long as we don't have something the size of a phone which you carry in your pocket, and which you can access as easily as you can a phone, it doesn't really stand a chance of replacing it. Ideally it should fulfill both functions: that is, you shouldn't have to wear it to be able to use it, but if you want to, you can get fully immersed in VR/XR. Besides that it should give you access to the equivalent of all the important apps that are currently available for phones. Otherwise people are still going to grab their phone again for their drip of social media and whatnot. So I think it's a tall order that's not technically feasable right now. It may be at some point, but in my estimation it's going to take at least 10 to 15 years if the companies that are currently spearheading the tech keep at it at the rate they are.
You’re right 100% I love my Questria and I wish that they would allow a pastor without a boundary menu popping up every time and whenever you walk in your house, the screen should be able to follow you and you are right to close to nobody use more than once a week because of the lenses and it was hard to see but with this close street it’s a lot more easier on the eyes
For people who actually play sweaty multiplayer Quest games every day, this is an insane upgrade for 500. Population one and other games got day1 patches
One thing I haven't heard of yet, is that I believe mixed reality will be a boon for those who would like to use the Quest 3 for fitness, if they can't handle the feel of total immersion, now they can anchor themselves in the real world and let the game play come to them.
I don't understand how they don't just market the Quest Lite like the Series S (and the Quest 3 serving like the Series X). Have it be 300 compared to the Quest 3 (same cost as original Quest 2), give no controllers (but have them be separate for those that want to upgrade later), offer a bit less ram, a bit less storage, use less-powerful XR2 chips (the lower-quality chips from the yields from Quest 3, but still good), and use fresnel lenses (not great now that pancakes are so superior, but would save on cost). That would ensure they could keep color pass-through and the depth sensor. Apart from the pancake lens clarity, those are the KEY features of this new generation, as MR is where they are aiming to move their vision towards. You would think they would want to keep that. That choice would draw in Quest 2 owners looking to upgrade (but not spend $200 more than the initial Quest 2) and continue to build excitement for the MR features they want developers to create. Maybe allow them to re-use their Quest 2 controllers if they upgrade. Going back to black and white pass-through just seems like a step backwards . While a $200 device is much cheaper than the Quest 3's $500, I cannot see them getting much of a new audience that DIDN'T already buy the cheaper Quest 2 (already sold 20+ million units and the retention is rough) or folks that would be easily able to pick up a Quest 2 (already hovering around $150 on Ebay). Market it less as a 'gaming-focus' like the Quest 3, but more for a media consumption/fitness/casual 'entry-point' device that something without controllers would provide. Maybe offer a simple media remote for navigation as an alternative to controllers. Finger-tracking (and optics in general) would be far better to use with that color-passthough. Bluetooth accessories (like controllers/mouse/keyboard) would also still work well. Gutting the key feature from the new device and "re-releasing the Quest 2" doesn't seem like it would bring in many users that don't already have the prior model (and could easily find it for cheap).
Thing is a lot of the people that were in the target audience for the quest 2 are not in the target audience for quest 3, 500$ is a big ask for a lot of folks, so to really penetrate that market that number has to drop fairly low (300 is probably the maximum and now due to the raising cost of everything even that may have shifted down a bit) so I get where meta is coming from, but I agree with your sentiment, if they sell the lite massively and it is so far cut back from what the quest 3 offers that will have meta shooting itself in the foot, I also echo sentiment on quest 3 pro, if it had all that was good about both the QP and Q3 it would likely actually be worth the 1-1200$ asking price. I’m crossing my fingers they figure that out and we get a QPv2 that actually pushes things forward
The thing is though that both headsets will be on the market, it's not a replacement. For kids who want to play GorillaTag without passthrough can buy the lite, and for people who are more enthusiasts and want to use MR can buy the Quest 3. If there is a lite, you have to see it as an alternative, not as part of the main development path of XR iterations overall
Good analysis as always Brad, I agree with 90% of what you covered we’ll see. I’m with you on the race to the bottom point its not helpful to compromise the experience especially in VR because if its not good enough then it just turns people off
I also lay a lot of the blame on the Big 2 Game Publishers. EA and Activision (now Microsoft). They have been low-key embargoing VR development among the studios. Because they're just like the Oil industry: Don't threaten that gravy train that is running smoothly with your newness, kid. We've got quarterly earnings reports to make our bonuses, not 4-year forecasts that grow the future.
I would def like to use my Q3 on airlink to play Diablo IV like I do Demeo: As a passthrough MR experience on my kitchen table, little 3D demons running to and fro
The Quest Pro was released a year late. It should have launched in October of 2021 when it was first teased at Meta Connect that year. It being launched a year before the Quest 3 was a big mistake. Hopefully the rumored Quest Pro 2 being made in partnership with LG takes the Quest Pro idea and turns it up to 12. A Quest "Lite" with no controllers, Quest 2 lenses and an XR2 Gen 2 would be a great entry level headset for many that just want to try VR. Of course making it compatible with the Touch Plus and Touch Pro controllers would help as well.
Tested quest 3 the other day and the standout function of the pass thru for me was the ability to easily grab things (drink) and have it feel really easy and natural. It was so nice to be able to do tasks around my office without having to constantly take the headset off. It’s nowhere near perfect but it’s so much more usable than anything I’ve used so far.
THANK FUCKING GOD you got some breather time AWAY FROM GENERATING DECKARD COPIUM
I like that you mentioned doing the dishes, I just did that wearing the headset, did the diahes, and ate breakfast while watching RUclips videos. Family was like what are you wearing
Seeing the distortion in videos (haven't used the headset) makes me wonder how that doesn't give you a headache.
I was skeptical about MR games until i tried a few. Surprisingly i found them more immersive than VR. That feeling of needing to be aware of the playspace boundary was gone, i was completely free to move around, sit on the couch, do whatever. I guess its up to developers to make compelling games that can think outside the box.
My exact thoughts. it's because MR is the opposite of VR. It brings the gaming elements to where you are and doesn't take you into the gaming elements. It's a damn marvel of technology
for gaming, i dont see it yet, and i doubt it will.
Mix reality games is just a toy for childern.
@@moncimoovremember vr used to be nothing but tech demos a couple years ago🤷 things will change with Mr eventually
@@vinny3410 i just cant imagine AAA game like lone echo, and people paid 59$ just to see their room flying around into the space.. nah.. its stupid.
... wait maybe its kinda cool afterall
gameplay might be fun but storywise is silly
@@moncimoov not all games need a crazy story y'know (as I said previously it just needs time to develop just like vr did)
That "Gateway Drug" feeling you describe at the end is the realest shit in the entire video. I got my Quest 3 today and using my hands to drag around RUclips videos in floating windows in my actual bedroom then picking up the controllers and being able to hop into a game like Pavlov is the kind of thing that I have dreamed about since I was a kid. I am MUCH more excited for the Apple Vision Pro now despite never being able to afford it at $3500. I bought an M1 Macbook specifically to use with the virtual workspace "Immersed" but honestly using it with the Quest 2 was truly painful for many reasons. The Quest 3 seems to have solved 90% of my gripes and imagining having an M2 chip built-in to one of these headsets and working natively with productivity apps has rekindled my excitement for this industry to the same levels it was at during the Rift DK1 days. For me so far, Quest 3 is the first headset I would be able to recommend to my normie friends with no need to say "yeah but there's this one weird kink that you'll have to ignore". I really hope this headset drives retention and encourages software developers to start taking VR seriously again!
I totally agree.
Very excited to see how Mixed Reality evolves in the future.
I think the end-game potential of mixed reality is much higher than people expect, in an exciting way, due to the 3D world element that hasn't fully been tapped into. I always like to think that the "next gen" has to improve in all aspects--which makes me excited for the Quest 4, Quest 5, etc. Now let's just hope the industry stays alive to see these improvements.
Even as someone who doesn’t want to do flat in a HMD, I very much agree that low end hardware is not solving real problems and is heading in a pointless direction. Weird to think that if Meta pushed, they could make a Quest Pro 2 (more powerful processor, uOLED/pancake) that would be a lot of what we want Deckard hardware to be.
Processor takes lots of time
If they really are gonna can quest pro product line then it makes sense because it's redundant. The Quest 3 pretty much does almost everything better than it, and for cheaper.
For the actual gamers on Quest, it’s a welcome upgrade for 500. Some games had day one patches and the bump is insane
That's why there will be a Valve Deckard
The Quest Pro sold much less and was even less accessible to the average consumer than the Quest 3. The Quest 3 has a much better value. The mobile processor used is one of the most recent. The Quest headsets can already do PCVR. It is up to developers to make games for PCVR. People keep wanting all of these advanced features and constant upgrades, but they do not sell as well. Meta is doing the Nintendo approach and waiting to the tech becomes more affordable. It seems like a winning strategy for Nintendo and the Quest line. It isn't that people don't want these upgrades, but standalone VR and affordability are also important. These features will continue to come to future headsets.
Well said. Your insight, thoughtfulness, and commitment is truly appreciated. There are a lot of RUclipsrs out there, but your perspective on the headsets and the industry as a whole are a fresh and valuable time capsule to the current and future state of VR . I rarely post, but just a note of respect standing out among the rest.
You and thrill are the only reviews I care about, thanks for the hopium
Totally agree and I wish there was an Quest 3 option with eye tracking
Being able to grab a drink mid-playthrough without having to touch my headset at all is a game changer.
How exactly? Do you mean in mixed reality games? Cause if it's full VR, you'd have to doubletap to passthrough and still touch the headset.
What I want is bring something into VR. For example say I put my beer in a holder that has a checkerboard pattern. It would look for that pattern and draw a representation of my beer no matter what game I'm in.
This could have been done on the quest2 even, color cameras wouldn't be needed. Maybe the depth sensor.
I love the quest 3. When I initially started to set it up I was so focused on the floating screens that I didn’t even realise it defaults to Mixed Reality. When I did finally realise my first thought was this is going to be so awesome in the Apple Vision Pro. So now I’m even more excited for that. Quest for gaming Vision Pro for everything else. It’s like the Quest is a gaming console and the Vision Pro is (ironically) a PC.
Bradley, keep in mind Oculus has always wanted an entry tier device marketed as a general media consumption device. The Oculus Go fit this bill and the Go went away because the deal with Xiaomi had issues. The Go's retention rate was actually over double what they were seeing for GearVR and from my limited talks with those in retail sales, it was not selling poorly. They would have had to find another manufacturer. They needed to thin the herd and get rid of 3DOF to push market original their all-in-one Quest line properly.... I expect they will market "Quest Lite" as a general media device, sell it without controllers and make it so it will not sync with aftermarket Meta controllers and will not run any VR app requiring controllers, so that never tries to be a gaming system. This is the right way to bring out a $199 general media VR device. The kind of thing you could sell in bulk to education centers, enterprise, retirement homes and maybe in air port lobby's, etc... Expanding use cases beyond gaming with an affordable headset is good for VR as long as the $199 device is clearly marketed and restricted to general media use cases and simple games that work with the hand interface.... As someone who's used VR to watch movies on a plane, I disagree very much with "toy for children". It's going to be a VR headset for people who don't give a shit about gaming. I really wish people would open their eyes and realize that potential is still very strong.
According to Statista, Meta owns over 75% of the VR hardware market. Since launching Quest, meta has done everything they can to stomp out PC VR, not only killing Rift, but pulling all marketing from PC VR, not properly supporting it. They have zero interest. They only support PC VR through link and air link to try and pull in headset buyers who would otherwise buy a competitors product. When you have the company who owns 75% of the VR hardware market trying to kill PC VR that has had huge a huge negative impact on game studios wanting to invest in PC VR. Meta is responsible for the down turn.
As for Quest 3, the 30% bump made such a difference for me it has me very excited about Vision Pro. Looking at total pixel count, Quest 2 had 7 megapixels, Quest 3 bumps it to 9 megapixels, but Vison Pro will have 23 megapixels... Quest 3's dual 4 megapixel color cameras do a usable job delivering grainy Mixed Reality, but I can't wait to see what Vision Pro's dual 12 megapixel color cameras are going to deliver to that 23 megapixel screen. Not to mention utilizing all Apple's camera AI tricks to correct contrast and oversaturation problems... When you go from a Quest 2 to Quest 3 and geek out over 30% increase in resolution, and so many have, I realize people are going to loose their shit when they see what Vision Pro is capable of and if you are a huge fan of XR technology might even be moved to tears at how good it is. At least that's what I heard from someone who did actually get to try Vision Pro at Apple and also bought a Quest 3 day one. "When you experience Mixed Reality THAT good, you immediately realize how foolish it is just think of these devices for gaming"
When you hold up your Quest 3 and say "I want a better version of this". Well for the Mixed Reality use case for general media, Vision Pro is going to deliver that at a premium and once that bar for quality is set Meta will be on a mission to get the ballpark for their gaming devices. At 23 megapixel will the micro OLED screens, I expect Vision Pro is something you can use all day and the quality be so good, a lot of the time you will forget you'll not looking at real monitor displays. If the fidelity's is high enough for it not to be a gimmick, then you have to juxtapose the cost of the real displays it's replacing when considering its $3500 price point. When the fidelity of the Mixed Reality experience passes a certain threshold it goes from being a gimmick to solving real problems through augmented virtualization, we haven't had anything good enough to do that before Vision Pro. That's what people still don't get.
Once that thing actually exits people will notice it.
I have a lot of interest in AR but zero interest in Apples closed ecosystem.
@sonicsnake44 this. It'll be awesome for the Apple fans that are already heavily invested in their products already, but when it launches I feel It'll be shit on even worse than meta was just based on price alone. Either way both devices have the same goals and it's exciting watching the early days of it all unfold. I started on a rift s and didn't expect anything like a quest 3 for like at least a decade
@@smittyvanjagermanjenson182 I think the people seeing extreme high and low price points on hardware as bad for VR have tunnel vision around the the type of devices we've had. Up to this point AR/MR headsets have been restricted to industrial devices, like the HoloLens. VR has been all about gaming. There is general media consumption happening on Quest, Vive, etc... but they are devices conceived by game industry minds and focused on that sector, you can watch Hulu on your Nintendo Switch but media consumption is maybe 2% of what people do with a Switch. With a Quest, you have Meta TV, Netflix, etc.. and this maybe makes up 15-20%. So we need devices that are designed specifically for non-gaming use cases that can support some casual gaming, that's what the Apple Vision Pro is aiming for with focus on the highest quality Mixed Reality money can buy at the consumer level. I do think with Quest Lite, Meta will be aiming to produce a VR device for that bottom of the barrel, betting that with higher resolution and 6DOF, a Oculus Go replacement can make it in 2024....It's all in the marketing... As long as it's marketed clearly to be distinct from Quest 3 and with focus on non-gaming apps, it will stay in its own lane... The big problem right now is that the VR gaming community is struggling to see a non-gaming focused headset being a success. Meanwhile, I think the rest of the world is waiting for a XR device to come to market that does focus on everything else, but they are going to be less forgiving and want something that "just works" with very high fidelity. That's why a company like Apple can build a Vision Pro and a company like Meta really can't get away it. If you're wealthy enough to buy a Rolex, you're not going to buy a Rolex made by a toy company. Meta doesn't have an ecosystem, brand recondition, brick and mortar stores, huge developer community to pull off making a Vision Pro a success in the same way Apple does
The harsh reality is Meta is a social media company who's entire revenue stream flows from an ad business model, they've made no money on hardware, so every headset they've produced since buying Oculus has been an experiment. They made somewhere around net 24 billion last year and spent over 16 billion on Reality Labs. 97% of their revenue from ads, so they are taking 70% of the money made from ads on their social platforms and 100% funding VR/MR/AR development, with no sustainable model presented... Meanwhile Apple is a real computer hardware company making over 50% of their revenue from hardware. So one of these companies is real, the other basically an obsessed billionaire CEO determined to bring his vision to life, business model behind it and losses be damned. I love my Quest 3, but I have very, very little faith Meta will be building VR or AR headsets long term, because to do that their has to be a business model that works, and they don't have one and they need to sell like 20x more headsets and have very high retention to make it work... They aren't winning at that and instead they've successfully broken trust, fumbled hardware releases (Quest Pro), they don't know what they are doing and it's all Zuckerberg's play money.
That's why people who understand business see them as a complete joke. They are the best at social media and very good at making money through ad sells, but when Tim Cook, etc.. look at Meta's Reality Labs adventures, they basically look at the endeavor like a successful actor humiliating themselves trying to make a music career leveraging the money they made off their acting success, but they aren't making any money off the music, it's all a pet project funded just because they have the deep pockets to do it, It's kind of pathetic. That is the state of Meta right now.
Insightful as always, and I agree on the Quest Lite. Why stagnate after doing all that work on pancake lenses and immense screen door effect reduction? And no controllers would be rough as well. People, especially those most likely to be using a $200 device, would probably want to play games. Why not just bump up to $300 and include controllers + other small improvements as a Quest 2 tier replacement?
What they are actually trying to do with the QLite is pull people towards VR in general.
Look at it as the successor of the Oculus Go
I think they want to kinda keep it modular, as giving the entry level buyers more choice of how much they want to spend.
On the other hand quest 3 should have came with the elite strap, with battery version being the only add on.
Honestly they can probably just put that new chip in quest 2 and call it a day at $300
I don’t see why not just keep the Quest 2 going
My hot take is Quest Light could be a great idea! Cut the passthrough altogether and make it lightweight and cheap. The biggest problem with Quest2 is not the resolution, it's the weight on your face.
Getting the cost down would be also great for wide adoption. 500 is a lot for most people.
No you don't understand you NEED to use it as desktop replacer this is THE FUTURE why would you want to use VR in something as useless as GAMING /s
Thanks Brad I'm glad you took the time to do the video, it's good timing. It's interesting to think how far q3 software will improve from here also. Personally I am experiencing more grain effect in passthrough than I would have hoped and expected but other than that I am using Q3 alot at the moment and loving a more snappy response time.
I checked it out at Best Buy, TY BB! But I can almost predict the Q3 will show up on eBay first quarter 2024 in numbers...Holding off on the buy decision until Black Friday
I agree wholeheartedly. Meta and Zuck need to abandon the idea of Quest Lite and focus on releasing a Quest Pro 2- take the Quest 3 and ramp it up, add eye & face tracking, increase the passthrough resolution, and focus on comfort for long use sessions. You don’t need to redesign the controllers, keep the touch+ while you iron out their hand tracking over the long haul and by the time Apple Vision Pro comes out, Meta could have a comparable device for somewhere between 1.5 to 2k.
Quest 3 is amazing in my opinion. I have the quest 2 also and Q3 just does everything better. Watching movies, gaming, and MR is mind blowing to someone who’s never experienced this on other devices. This is just the beginning lifespan of the device so it’ll on get better. The only thing that I wish it had would be the Oled lenses for darker blacks.
completely ridiculous they leave out oled. The technology exists already, they are just trying to save money... on their flagship product?? Dissapointing, we're gonna have to wait another 3 years for the next Quest.
agree 100%
They could've added OLED for Quest 3 Max or something like that.
They will save Oled and eye tracking for Quest4, along with the expected boost in performance. Gives us a good reason to upgrade.
@@தமிழோன் It's not cost effective in regards to production, it's not just more expensive screens, it means a new design, more testing, new software versions, new production lines and part suppliers, etc, more people, more time, more things to go wrong, all adds up to a lot of money.
Q3 is so damn nice.. hard to imagine this level of progress back in the days of the Oculus rift, vive, etc, .. props to the technologist, engineers, programmers, keep it up. Thanks brad ❤️
I'm liking my Pico 4 for movies, does the Quest 3 improve in movies over the Pico 4
Agreed. They don’t want to rehash all the VR hype from back in 2017 or whenever it was, when it was “put your phone in a box and strap it to your face and you get virtual reality!” A few months of hype that then completely disappears because it’s basically a novelty party trick but without any real substance to keep people involved. XR isn’t going to be really mainstream until it’s highly functional and intuitive and fits into something that looks like a pair or RayBans, so until then focus on making good quality products for a niche market that is into it.
Well said, extremely gratifying knowing that someone with your level of clout and reach has a firm understanding of where we are at in the cycle of XR/VR.
Vision Pro is a hallmark for pushing the industry. The price is irrelevant, it’s getting it out there and pushing the field that is so critical at this stage of borderline collapse of industry particularly on the software side.
I’m not buying a bare bones VR headset. I want the best possible visual clarity, but it has to be focused on gaming. Not interested in Apple’s idea of virtual TV screens.
I totally agree, I hate the idea of a Quest Lite, if the retention for Q2 is low, this will not improve that situation. I had a Q1 and Q2, and now I have a Quest 3 now. I do think Q3 is a step forward and I am happy with it so far. I have seen the progression of the standalone headsets and I think that games and other uses will be better. I am surprised at how I don't think twice about walking around with the Q3 because of the pass-through improvement, and would never do it with the Q2. Also PCVR is playing much better with the Q3 as well.
The only way I can see a Q-Lite working is if it is Q- for kids, let them play Roblox and Xbox games using a game controller instead of touch controllers.
I would not (could not) pay for the Apple Reality but I do think it will give us a look at what to expect in the Q4 in three years, as it will have better optics and processor by then, The difference will be a better price and a much bigger ecosystem, so I will be happy to use my new Q3 until then.
A $199 thing that collects dust because it sucks is even more toxic and counterproductive than a $299 thing collects dust because it sucks.
Retention is low because there's no content.
There's no content because 20M units sold sound a lot, but it's nowhere near PC, console and mobile gaming. No dev is rushing to the VR gold mine, there isn't any.
If a Quest Lite is what's missing for Meta to actually expand sales worldwide and make actually relevant user numbers, I'm in. Not sure that's their goal, though.
@@skol_sem_som There is actually a good amount of content but a lot of it is not very good, this is true on all platforms, not just Meta. It also depends on if you limit the use to just games. I think a lot of people including those who have a Quest 2, do not use it for more than games. I don't go a day without using my Q2, and now that will be the case with the Quest 3. I use it for exercise, movies, and 360 experiences, oh and I also play games. Even though I am not that big into MR I am sure with development I will find a use case for it as well. I personally think the more the headset can do the better, this is why I think a strip-down version is a bad idea.
@@skol_sem_somi think vr dev is also do different from all other kinds of game development that people don't want to risk it all before we have the basics figured out
I would like to hear more about Quest 3 and PCVR gaming, for instance, if PCVR games look better on Quest 3 than on the Quest 2, and how much better does it look? Is it less blurry and sharper on the Quest 3? Can you see more detail? I'm curious about this because I play PCVR on the Quest 2 and I think it looks very nice on the Quest 2, so I want to know how much better it'll look on the Quest 3.
building low end devices for vr is a mistake in my opinion. The tech to price is not where it needs to be yet to make a good budget vr headset. Meta will just be hurting the industry further. It sucks that companies can't make a compelling device at a price people can afford. I think in a couple years things will look very different.
Tell that to Nintendo. Their entire business strategy is developing 1/4th as powerful systems.
There are tens of thousands of players for population one and some of the other larger VR titles who play for hours and hours a day. That whole world and VR games having a chance for profit exists because of budget Quest(s)
True, cause then it could led to a future where everyone is using crappy devices that have all the potential to be so much more, but aren't because meta wants those numbers.
They need to also come back to PCVR space, and strive to pack in as much tech as they can at a reasonable value point. $1500 subpar Quest Pro's and $3500 Vision Pro's aren't necessarily it either, but there's a nice middle in there somewhere.
"It sucks that companies can't make a compelling device at a price people can afford."
If Quest 2 or 3 don’t fill that role, I don’t know which headset could…
@@14supersonic I would take the future where more people get the experience than rather few people get better experience
Loving the Quest 3, but I wish you could place browser windows wherever you wanted instead of having 3 of them pinned to each other. Let me keep a screen in my living room and a screen in my Kitchen! The UX for flat media consumption in MR still has a long way to go.
"How can we make cars cheaper?"
"No engine, no steering wheel, no windows; it will be so light you can just add a hole at the bottom and you walk with it on your shoulders."
"But do you really think people will wanna buy it?"
"Of course they will, it's cheaper!"
Need to make a video about steam vr 2 before “things happen”?….🧐
I was able to try MR on my Quest 3 for the first time today. When it first loaded up, I was a little... disappointed.. in the quality of the passthrough. I know this is beyond what's come before, but it still left me feeling a little disappointed. This is a fairly average room as far as lighting goes, what you'd typically find in most homes. An overhead light and a couple lamps. It seems like the quality appears to be considerably better if you can basically... nuke the room you're in and get those exposure values way up though. So if that's an option for someone, it does help. But anyway, as I said, I was fairly disappointed when I first opened it up and was looking around. Until the room mapping started on the First Encounters demo. Just watching the quest 3 overlay this virtual mesh onto objects around me was actually mind blowing. And once the tech demo started up, the quality of the passthrough cameras was the furthest thing from my mind. I was literally running around my kitchen trying to shoot all the fuzzballs. It felt like my first time in VR all over again, and this is coming from an Index. So while I don't think the passthrough right now is good enough for anything in day to day life, unless they're able to really improve things with software updates, I do love where it seems like it's headed if they can keep it up.
Also, this was my first quest product... Holy shit this strap is the worst thing I've ever put on my head... and I've worn kevlar helmets in the military. This thing physically hurts. But I'm waiting on the Bobo strap to finally become available
@@stormchaser2oo839believe it or not the quest 2's default strap was even worse since the weight hung farther from your face
@@tal_os8148 I've heard that too. I can't imagine. It makes me think they purposely design these straps to be awful to force people to upgrade to the elite strap
Damnit Bradley your making the Quest 3 even more tempting and i can't afford it right now lol
same here!!!lol
@@yannisgkI bet the 512gb gets $50 off by Christmas. Sales on Amazon are half the 128gb version.
Yea, thank god I had a best buy credit card lol
you believe that christmas prices will be lower than black friday's?@@SiXiam
You said everything very well. I thought I will disagree with you on the Quest Lite stuff, but you explained it in a way I cannot dislike haha. Makes sense and I see your point.
I think it makes a ton of sense to have a cheaper lineup just made for games and entertainment. The mainstream $500-1000 should be where they test new ideas and then have a basic gaming headset for $200-$300.
Blown away on my Quest 3, But I was coming off an Oculus Go which wasn't even a 6DOF headset.
I already look forward to your Quest 4 leaks in future. :)
Yeah, you vocalized all my issues with the Quest Lite. Meta's already positioned themselves as the "more accessible" option for VR, but going backwards just to try to make an even more accessible hardware doesn't work in their wheelhouse. There's so much interesting hardware and software with the Quest 3 that they'd be abandoning to make the modern equivalent of GearVR or Oculus Go.
Meta's not at the point where they could make streamlined entry level models (the iPhone SEs/Galaxy A Series equivalents) because those entry level models need a baseline of usability. One that this headset won't have without a depth sensor, pancake lenses, or color passthrough.
If the Quest 2's are out there collecting dust because they're too rudimentary, there'll be even MORE Quest 2.5's (because that's what this is) collecting dust.
But they aren't abandoning it. The quest lite is the "bare minimum" device, worse hardware, but also more room for software improvements and collected user feed back(helping build a better experience for all users). I feel like I'll always be on the mid tier quest, as the lite is weak and the pro, while cool, seems unnecessary if it means a new mid level quest is due the following year
I'm excited for the Quest Pro 2. I know nothing about it, but it stands to reason that it should be like a "Quest 3.5" for feature implementation.
The upgrade for balanced weight, increased sweet spot area, lens clarity and lower wifi6e latency for wireless PCVR is a game changer for me. I am not a standone Quest user, I am all in for wireless PCVR and the Quest 3 has become the best for wireless PCVR among my VR headsets
Gradual improvement forward to building a new standard. I don't like their mixed reality nor do I use it. I use it like I use my tablet in bed watching TV or browsing the internet.
Will there be a Quest 3 pro version? I don't know if I should wait to see if a pro version will come out or if I should just buy the Quest 3 as it is and jump into the metaverse
I actually do like flat gamming and stereo optic movies quite a lot in VR. It would be nice to setup 3d animation scenes in VR for working. But again the software needs more advancement.
you said, " It would be nice to setup 3d animation scenes in VR for working". Please clarify what you meant.
I guess it really is going to come down to Quest 3 sales. If people aren't buying because of the price then it makes perfect sense for a Quest Lite. People like me who haven't tried modern VR aren't going to care about Quest 2 Fresnel vs Quest 3 pancake lenses.
Hi Brad, I am very much in agreement with your points. I think the main reason why so many of these applications feel like demos is because there is a focus on using the controller as a basis for immersion. Focusing on the controller as the immersion point and not focusing on the content, or having the content focus on the interactivity of the controller (including your hands via hand tracking) as the basis for immersion, is putting the cart before the horse and creating retention issues. As much as I think its cool to, say, stack blocks in a "mixed reality" world, at the end of the day, I am stacking blocks and I can only stack so many blocks until I lose my own blocks.
I get why Meta is trying to do this - capture as big of market share as possible - but it can also leave customer needs uncatered for. Mixed Reality as a concept - it really should be distinctly split between AR and VR.
1. VR is going to be for gaming enthusiasts - Really need foveated rendering, eye tracking, 35 PPD and above and using an existing configuration like a gamepad (including steam deck)/keyboard & mouse with stereoscopic gaming on a big virtual screen. The headset will be comparatively a little chunkier than an AR counterpart, but will be mainly for at home use. Maybe some portability, but only as a novelty - primary use is to have epic gaming experience at home, and being able to play all favourite games in stereoscopic 3d. Being able to play, for example, my entire steam library on a high fidelity headset removes the obstacle of having native VR content and working around the onerous requirements of a new virtual controller/hand tracking etc. Having all my steam library games to play in VR automatically solves the problem of lack of VR content and brings us one step closer to being more immersed in the virtual world.
2. AR has to be pretty much something like the meta rayban/snap spectacles kind of thing - small cameras with cool interactive games to play, informs me about where I am, what i'm looking at, etc. Good battery life, built in mic to talk to ppl, a button to record/snap photos/videos, doesn't have to be super high fidelity, just a lot of fun, and immerses me more in the real world.
Having a device trying to do both is not going to do either well and won't fit any target market. Like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. What is at risk is trying to do both with something like the Quest 3 (based on how its marketed) - only to find that it does VR way better than AR. But, VR has no foveated rendering/eye tracking, and I suspect we are going to see that as the industry standard for PC VR solutions shortly. Then for AR - that no one wants to do only AR at home, they want to go outside, and no one is going to lug that chunky thing around on their head outside only to find its out of battery in 1.5 hours. When you try to capture as big an audience as possible, you might find that no one is happy with it, and I suspect this is going to happen for the Quest 3!
I paired my keyboard and mouse to the Quest 3 today and have this weird optimistic sensation about technology that I haven't had since the Ipad....staring at three open browsers on my device rn...they have something really good here, really really good. I hope that they don't forget about productivity bc in that sense, Apple will have an edge. And if the tech is good....I will let them take my money. Also thinking about the amount of devices these headsets can make obselete....the giant living room TV, gone, the labtop/tablet, no need, this will be more ergonomic in a few gens. Learning in VR/AR will be glorious....I want to read in VR so bad, this is really really close. I feel like this device just made a moment of silence happen among vr enthusiasts, we're kind of just looking at each other shocked, excited....asking, is it just me or did Meta finally deliver something special. Not THE device....but something that can get mainstream HOOKED on VR.
I 100% agree with your sentiments on this matter, I am a Quest pro user for wireless face tracked VRChat and the idea of moving backwards is troubling for sure, I have very little interest in the quest 3 due to it’s lack of face and eye tracking, so I just hope they will eventually do a refreshed version and bump up all the specs.
Hopefully not for 1500
I got my second hand qpro for less than a new 128gb q3, so I think I'll keep it. I do have to apply updates manually tho
Funny, interesting thing is that my personal reason for poor retention is the amount of trouble shooting and preparation we have to do just to get it. Usually just issues with linking to steam, more recently quests link menu doesn’t work, so I have to go straight to steam vr, everything thakes forever to load, and if it does you have to cross your fingers you don’t have some random thing come up that you have to fix. Basically its just STILL a very buggy experience.
Otherwise id be in br chat every day….
I totally agree, it definitely has gotten WAY better than when I had the rift cv1 and had to pull out a cable, open the software, probably redo the boundary bc the sensors got bumped etc. But there still needs to be more seamless interactions, especially when the act of putting on a headset requires more effort than ploping your butt down to play flat games
OMG.. I have to agreee a LOT. Both the Q1 and Q2 are SO unreliable and MOST of the time troubleshooting is pointless; its almost ALWAYS an update or several reboots and shit just starts to randomly work again. Most of the worst cases where I just give up playing for a week are because of random "LOST TRACKING" and the guardian system just goes to shit OUT OF NO WHERE, and you literally changed NOTHING about the room you play in with PLENTY OF LIGHT, all the cameras are clean, no Xmas lights around lol, ...those have NEVER fixed anything for me. ALWAYS had to wait for META to fix with another patch. I look at the whole VR industry like the first day's we had Window's operating system like Windows 95. Remember that shit (if your old enought lol)!? Used to get BSOD SEVERAL TIMES A DAY. The phrase "Not ready for Prime Time" came to mind back then, its basically the same with VR right now. NOT READY. Leave that shit in the oven to bake a couple more years and hopefully get the technology more reliable. In the meantime, its a fucking coin flip every day I go out to see if I an play Golf + LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
As a newbie (At 65!) I feel the 3 may have brought new vitality to headsets generally. Increased user take up will create new software demand to the point where these will become mainstream . They have the potential to augment training/education hugely, and other development niches will open up.
Dude/dudette! You absolutely need to have your own RUclips with your VR opinions or anything related to that. I think people would find it extra endearing due to your age alone, you would be extremely unique. There are few older flat screen gamers on youtube who do quite well for themselves, and all they do is play games, talk, and be older than your average gamer and we love them for it!
A high quality monitor and TV replacement is all I want. The Apple headset is the first device that seems to be truly capable of that but not for that price.
4:50 I think one of the main reasons for this is comfort. And Meta does not seem to care about that.
I have been using my quest 2 at least once a week if not multiple times a week for years now, mostly in VR Chat. But I can only manage to because I have gotten accessories to make it comfortable.
And im still using the quest 3 but its just not quite as comfortable.
I experienced the opposite by mistake. Apparently the glasses spacer solved a lot of the comfort issues, not knowing this before hand and being a glasses wearer, I wore the quest 3 for like 8 hours (few charging breaks) with out a complaint. The strap could use an upgrade, but it's comfortable enough for me until I see the right third-party straps coming
Quest 3 is the first headset I'd feel comfortable recommending to people who've never tried VR. Pancake lens, 120hz, slimmer profile solved the 3 big showstoppers for whipping out the VR at a party.
With regards to the upcoming cheaper quest model, I don't know if I would call it 'going back' as much as I would want to call it a movement in a direction that aims to maximize accessibility, thereby being a kind of technological improvement that isn't strictly 'technological'. I'd be floored if this style of headset were brushing shoulders with the likes of the HTC Vive back in 2016. What Meta has yet to do is figure out how to keep all of this prospectively obsolescent tech from ending up in a landfill as they are building their empire.
I remember Zuck mentioned about prices of upcoming Quest 3 to be $300, $400 and $500. Clearly he changed his mind, afterall he is a businessman not visionary man. I actually think that Meta should price Quest 3 at $399 for 128GB and $499 for 512GB. It would be lower entry price point with big incentives for power users to buy 512GB version.
me too...i was negatively surprised by the prices!!!
I think Meta should sell both Quest 3 models for $1
The Q3 is fantastic and a watershed moment for standalone vr/ar. I've practically been living in mine since launch day. Feels like turning on my ps1 back in the day as a kid❤
Ps, aren't they rumoured to be making a 2k highend version coming as well as the low end one coming 2025?
Red Matter 2 is PCVR quality. Other enhanced games are like in between Quest 2 and PCVR. Definitely a step above.
I agree with your points. And now, only having a smartphone, a Quest 2 and a stationary PC, the Quest 3 surely seems attractive. But I can barely afford it and I want my next headset to also be my monitor replacement and laptop substitute (together with a bluetooth keyboard). So it may be better to wait and save up for Decard? Maybe preordering Slime VR now, before it gets more expensive? But then again, if we will still have to wait for the Deckard more than a year, I would love to have an upgrade sooner... Advise me master! Deckard when?!
One thing about mixed reality no one discusses is that it may open the world of exercise and the like, to those who feel uncomfortable and unbalanced with immersive VR. To be able to finally get your significant other to use the exercise programs in mixed reality mode, may give them enough of an anchor to their real world that they will pick it up and use it. It also may help seniors become more engaged and hence, active.
Brad did you watch those developer sessions about visionOS? I’m probably not gonna have the vision pro for money reasons, but I was really impressed at how polished the ui experience seem to be in headset, the sessions on the principles of spatial design and considerations for vision comfort really showed me their attention to detail and I got to understand a bit of the thought process behind the apple engineers and their choices, if the vision pro ships with m2 and not m3 I think it won’t be too capable for games anyway, but as a platform for use outside of gaming it seems very polished, although might seem to controled and limited to enthusiasts and modders
I totally get it, I have a Quest2 because the price was low enough I could swallow it knowing that it's going to sit quietly charging for most of it's life. The kids use it, I don't. I lost interest after trying to use passthrough but I couldn't even see my physical keyboard properly. If I could just lean over and pick up a headset, wear it to do some flatland 'stuff' (programming, design work etc) and then put it back again I'd be using it every day but with the way the physical interaction is it's just not feasible. The distance between 'here' and 'there' is too far.
Personally I'm most excited about the possibilities from the Beyond (not the actual Beyond, but what it's offering as a potential), my personal daily driver for a desktop is my SteamDeck, if I had something like a SteamDeck I could use for normal browsing, coding, design, terminal etc and when I needed to I could just throw on the headset for that deeper dive into things, hell yeah, that's my nirvana. If the SteamDeck could connect to the Beyond, just for flatland work, my god...
you sound like the kind of person that would absolutely lose their mind if they an AVP. Also might lose your mind at the COST lmao.
You made me laugh out loud when you said licking the camera at the end...
🤣🤣🤣
I agree, better to show people the best something can become and work to decrease the price than to compromise on features just release something as cheap as possible.
I'm not a teen, I'm 60. I've had VR since 2017, I played it a lot for 3 years, now I play it once a week or so. I have Pimax 8KX and PSVR2, what I lack is time to play as much as I would like. 10 to 12 hour work days, in consulting Engineering, looking at screens, means I really only feel like playing on weekends. I also ride motorcycles and I paint minis for table top gaming, where the games take 4 hrs or so, and painting a model can take 4 to 8 hrs, with hundreds of unpainted models (and 1,000's of painted ones). Finding time to play is not easy.
I'm not getting a Quest 3, first it is too expensive considering I have PCVR and PSVR2, I don't play standalone. I don't support Meta trying to make games exclusive to there platform. I might consider it in the future, but I think I'm better waiting to 2024/25 to see what comes out.
My friend Pico 4 is the first hmd that got me into VR. Decided to get quest 3 for myself. The pancakes and the 2000p+ res must be the minimum standard. It is a whole new world, I don't like non competitive shooters but hoping in PCVR just reloading a gun while fighting zombies I felt fear and pressure like never before in non competitive games! :D
Brad is the most hansomess man I have ever seen in my life 😍
oh god im so sorry
@@SadlyItsBradley Oh, sadlyItsBradley, so kind and so true,
Your videos bring me joy, it's plain to view.
Your wit and charm, your humor so bright,
Fill my days with warmth, like a beacon of light.
From "Minecraft" to "Among Us" galore,
You make me laugh 'til my sides are sore.
Your edits are slick, your commentary's gold,
You're a RUclipsr with a heart of gold.
So here's to you, sadlyItsBradley dear,
May your channel continue to grow and cheer.
For you're a RUclipsr we all adore,
And your love for gaming, we all adore.
Great video Brad, always love to hear your thoughts. I'm really starting to appreciate Quest 3 now, but also totally want a Quest 3 Pro rather than this budget version. I hope Meta will offer something, I'm sure they will want to compete with Apple at the highend, maybe with a headset around the $2000 price mark.
I’ve heard the Quest Pro line has been abandoned. I would be surprised if they came out with a Quest 3 Pro.
@@aquaticborealis4877 It hasn't been abandoned, they initially said they had pushed it out to around 2026 because they wanted the mobile tech to get good enough to run their photorealistic codec avatars, then Boz hinted one was in the works sooner than that.
Most recently there was talking they are planning a Quest 4 Pro to release in 2025.
But, yes the line will absolutely continue. They aren't goint to allow Apple uncontested dominance of the emerging enterprise/professional market, they will certainly put something out to compete with it.
I don't think it will be before 2025 though, as the current XR2 Gen 2 chip in the Quest 3 obviously won't be good enough to compete with Apple at all for passthrugh mixed reality. I have the Quest Pro as well and the Quest 3 MR is better, but not much better, it kind of looks like a good software update of the Pro's passthrough rather than a next generation leap.
Pro 2 would need to be way better than Quest 3 at mixed reality to justify its high price so I suspect we will be waiting 18 to 24 months.
I was trying to figure out the target audience for the leaked specs and the only conclusion I can come up with is that Lite will be an entry level social media device. Mixed reality, controllers and worse visuals don't really matter in that space, but the price does. So, Horizon, Teams integration, VR Chat...
social media device, huh? you are great!!! many bravos to you!!!
I agree, well said!
Reality is the numbers aren't going to be huge compared to what is coming in the future. It's a cheap tactic to try to get more kids in the short term, but ultimately, like you said, we're actually finally so close to the sort of quality that the mainstream *actually wants* .
So let's not go backwards and muddy the waters of what is expected with VR, let's continue to push forward and get to that level of tech quickly where we can finally say *"this is what you want"*
Meta can do that for less than $3500. I imagine a Quest Pro 2 at $1500 could be that device. Let's do it now!
Quest 3 is the gateway drug that proves what's possible, Quest Pro 2 *is* the device that truly delivers it. Done. Really don't need to continue this google cardboard mentality anymore. We're way past that now and on the cusp of getting this whole XR thing to actually work.
well said! Quest Pro 2 and they should TOTALLY rip off the "Glance and Pinch" from the Apple Vision Pro lmao! That shit is fucking BRIALLIANT! It's like they invented the mouse all over again, but for "Spatial Computing"
If you Google Quest Pro you can find articles that indicate the Pro line has been abandoned.
@@WigganNuGMeta already had the pinch, and eye tracked menu browsing has already existed for awhile now and is present in some PSVR2 games. Apple didn't invent it, but they are putting it all together in a neat seamless package, which is right is par with Apple's strategy for the past decade. Apple doesn't innovate, they streamline
Same Meta Quest 3 has me eager to see some high end headsets coming out with all the features at their best
I never thought the day would come...
A gladly it's Chadley video, it's been 80 years 😢
I 3D Printed some headstrap adapters, so for the time being, any Quest2 Elite Headstrap will work with the Quest3. Vid is up on my channel- Cheers!!😊
Well said Brad. Meta will cause an even bigger retention problem if they introduce a minimal device. People will try their friends Quest 3 then buy, or grandma will unwittingly buy them a Quest lite and it will be tossed in a closet within weeks. After 10(ish) years, Meta still don't understand who their customers are....and I thought they were supposed to be social experts?! Or are they just trying to give a middle finger to apple by making a cheaper useful device. But, they should focus on their customers, not compete with their peers if they want to be successful.
They're just going for multiple market share. Lower end and mid end. Apple taking very high end. This is expected. Right now, lower end is quest 2 and mid is quest 3, they are just swapping quest 2 for this newer one to have a new item to sell. It sounds very similar to quest 2 anyways with the frenel lenses and whats been discussed so far.
@@ryanguy6789 Yeah. Sure. I can imagine a replacement for Quest 2 for a $200 - $300 price point, but it would have to have similar or better features than Quest 2 as four years will have passed since Quest 2 launch. I am concerned they will just knock out a HMD with old tech does not advance MR or VR. They shouldn't race to the bottom just because they can or just to create a low end portfolio to rival apple. I think they would be more profitable making meaningful, useful products and it will be better for the industry in the long run. Trying a low end device might give some people an appetite for a higher end device, which I am all for, but all I can forsee are more unused devices because people will be disappointed with the low end tech.
Rift S on a high end system is still high end lol. PCVR driving (mod) communities. But it doesn't generate the bucks for meta directly, which is the actual problem. Also Meta doesn't compete with Steam in price for games and software. Only on exclusive AAA titles (Asgards Wrath). Still can't beat stereo HiRise imagery in VR. Need the view angle, need the res, the contrast, that's it.
They are just going for a mobile strategy of producing a flagship device, a mid-tier one and something entry level so they can capture customers at all levels and have them in the database. It's an age-old marketing strategy which is somewhat a necessary evil to keep the business afloat instead of relying only on enthusiasts that will generally never fully fund a business.
Mixed realty - use face recognition and display names next to people on the Ray-ban glasses. People who never remember names will buy them and retention will be off the charts.
MR absolutely has a lot of great use cases. Green screens about to get a lot of use in vr chat, and it's neat to throw a virtual screen over the tv. It's funny going back to around 4 years ago when flip up visors were all the rage, and now we're using passthrough in the same way just as a casual feature.
I was waiting for that sort of video, i told myself yesterday that Brad wasn't going to stay silent for long.
You are killing me. I'm trying so hard not to buy a Quest 3 yet!! All I want is VRChat and virtual desktops so I can do real software development work while inside VR.
I always wait for the real review from the king
I doubt Meta will actually scrap the Quest Pro lineup for real. My educated guess is they will eventually release another headset with the same DNA to push their hyper-realistic avatars, later down the line. They will just do so under a totally different name and look to avoid inheriting the bad rep of the Quest Pro. And perhaps, they will make it much more different to the Quest 3 and really target corporate use, this time... Including the price tag.
For now, Meta is in a good position to lean back and observe what Apple is doing.
Thanks Brad, Always find what you have to say Invaluable and fascinating. Take care man.
Agree entirely with Brad. It has been eating me up seeing Meta introduce a feature, and then take it away in a next device.
We need a hardware base so developers are guaranteed what they build will be used in future devices.
If anything I want them to justify the Quest 3 launch price overtime, eg.) HD audio strap revision.
I'd be fine with the Quest Lite if we reached a minimum baseline for the comfort, the audio, the visuals. But as of now... Does there really need to be a bracket below the Quest?
At that point just call it the Oculus Go to avoid confusion.
I have a Quest 2 (and a Quest 1). The Quest Pro and the Apple headset are way out of my price range.
Remember, salaries here in Europe are about half US salaries. How would it feel if you doubled the headset price in the US?
What I want in my next headset are: pancake lenses, NOT Fresnel ones; significantly higher resolution (less screen door); battery at the back to counterbalance; probably faster processor; more memory and storage; less importantly, colour STEREO passthrough;
For all these features I would happily pay a higher price, say 2 or 3 times the Quest 2 price.
Tbh, as soon as I heard the Quest 3 lite rumour, I assumed it would be a Quest 3 with all the MR stuff stripped back and be focused on people who just want to play games.
I am watching this video while making breakfast in My quest two pass through.
The reason I had my quest2 just laying around is handsdown because of the discomfort. Now I have the quest3 with elite battery strap and everything is different. comfort is way underrated
I agree. Game-changing device. Unfortunately my quest 3 unit has a dead pixel and is being RMA'd, I can't wait until it gets back lol
I feel like we are hitting some bottlenecks with battery on those things. I mean, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put some amazing cameras in those things, but how to power them? Battery can only last so long, and people complain every time the battery doesnt last 2hrs. One signature thing about Quest is the wireless experience. I don't know If i want to plug into a socket. We'll see what the future brings
You said we were tired about hearing about hardware but I actually love hearing about all the new VR headsets being released! Love seeing the tech progress.
The problem with VR is that you can't set it up in a store window and demonstrate it to the masses. On top of that people don't like having to wear anything on their head to get an experience. That was even a big problem with 3d TV's and movies. People hated those glasses. VR really seems to be something for a group of enthusiasts who like the tech and the experience, and who like to ride the wave of new developments.
For me VR is a way to have these awesome experiences, and I want to go back to them over and over again. While many people acknowlegde that VR is an awesome experience, they don't feel drawn to actually go out and buy a headset themselves. My sisters kids really do enjoy VR from time to time, but they will never ask for the Quest 2 by themselves, They have their phone, the Switch, and a laptop to play with, and that's pretty much all they want and need.
Anyway I think it's going to take some tinkering to make VR the big thing with the retention rates that compare to phone usage anytime soon. As long as we don't have something the size of a phone which you carry in your pocket, and which you can access as easily as you can a phone, it doesn't really stand a chance of replacing it. Ideally it should fulfill both functions: that is, you shouldn't have to wear it to be able to use it, but if you want to, you can get fully immersed in VR/XR.
Besides that it should give you access to the equivalent of all the important apps that are currently available for phones. Otherwise people are still going to grab their phone again for their drip of social media and whatnot.
So I think it's a tall order that's not technically feasable right now. It may be at some point, but in my estimation it's going to take at least 10 to 15 years if the companies that are currently spearheading the tech keep at it at the rate they are.
You’re right 100% I love my Questria and I wish that they would allow a pastor without a boundary menu popping up every time and whenever you walk in your house, the screen should be able to follow you and you are right to close to nobody use more than once a week because of the lenses and it was hard to see but with this close street it’s a lot more easier on the eyes
I think I'll be sticking with my Vive XR Elite tbh, however I got mine used for under 500$.
For people who actually play sweaty multiplayer Quest games every day, this is an insane upgrade for 500. Population one and other games got day1 patches
One thing I haven't heard of yet, is that I believe mixed reality will be a boon for those who would like to use the Quest 3 for fitness, if they can't handle the feel of total immersion, now they can anchor themselves in the real world and let the game play come to them.
I don't understand how they don't just market the Quest Lite like the Series S (and the Quest 3 serving like the Series X).
Have it be 300 compared to the Quest 3 (same cost as original Quest 2), give no controllers (but have them be separate for those that want to upgrade later), offer a bit less ram, a bit less storage, use less-powerful XR2 chips (the lower-quality chips from the yields from Quest 3, but still good), and use fresnel lenses (not great now that pancakes are so superior, but would save on cost).
That would ensure they could keep color pass-through and the depth sensor. Apart from the pancake lens clarity, those are the KEY features of this new generation, as MR is where they are aiming to move their vision towards. You would think they would want to keep that.
That choice would draw in Quest 2 owners looking to upgrade (but not spend $200 more than the initial Quest 2) and continue to build excitement for the MR features they want developers to create. Maybe allow them to re-use their Quest 2 controllers if they upgrade.
Going back to black and white pass-through just seems like a step backwards . While a $200 device is much cheaper than the Quest 3's $500, I cannot see them getting much of a new audience that DIDN'T already buy the cheaper Quest 2 (already sold 20+ million units and the retention is rough) or folks that would be easily able to pick up a Quest 2 (already hovering around $150 on Ebay).
Market it less as a 'gaming-focus' like the Quest 3, but more for a media consumption/fitness/casual 'entry-point' device that something without controllers would provide. Maybe offer a simple media remote for navigation as an alternative to controllers. Finger-tracking (and optics in general) would be far better to use with that color-passthough. Bluetooth accessories (like controllers/mouse/keyboard) would also still work well.
Gutting the key feature from the new device and "re-releasing the Quest 2" doesn't seem like it would bring in many users that don't already have the prior model (and could easily find it for cheap).
Given current economic conditions a quest lite may fill a good niche. More people in VR will only help the industry.
Never realized how much pancake lenses were a game changer until I tried them
Your on point with everying. Even that this only makes me wants the vision pro even more now. Like it’s a guarantee I’m getting it now
Thing is a lot of the people that were in the target audience for the quest 2 are not in the target audience for quest 3, 500$ is a big ask for a lot of folks, so to really penetrate that market that number has to drop fairly low (300 is probably the maximum and now due to the raising cost of everything even that may have shifted down a bit) so I get where meta is coming from, but I agree with your sentiment, if they sell the lite massively and it is so far cut back from what the quest 3 offers that will have meta shooting itself in the foot, I also echo sentiment on quest 3 pro, if it had all that was good about both the QP and Q3 it would likely actually be worth the 1-1200$ asking price. I’m crossing my fingers they figure that out and we get a QPv2 that actually pushes things forward
The thing is though that both headsets will be on the market, it's not a replacement. For kids who want to play GorillaTag without passthrough can buy the lite, and for people who are more enthusiasts and want to use MR can buy the Quest 3. If there is a lite, you have to see it as an alternative, not as part of the main development path of XR iterations overall
I think Quest 3 is in perfect balance for not too much cheap to cut out every corners but not too expensive to freak every people out.
Thanks for your videos man! Who's the friend you spoke about in the video (supply chain specialist) who released the pico stuff?
Good analysis as always Brad, I agree with 90% of what you covered we’ll see. I’m with you on the race to the bottom point its not helpful to compromise the experience especially in VR because if its not good enough then it just turns people off
I also lay a lot of the blame on the Big 2 Game Publishers. EA and Activision (now Microsoft).
They have been low-key embargoing VR development among the studios. Because they're just like the Oil industry: Don't threaten that gravy train that is running smoothly with your newness, kid. We've got quarterly earnings reports to make our bonuses, not 4-year forecasts that grow the future.
I would def like to use my Q3 on airlink to play Diablo IV like I do Demeo: As a passthrough MR experience on my kitchen table, little 3D demons running to and fro
The Quest Pro was released a year late. It should have launched in October of 2021 when it was first teased at Meta Connect that year. It being launched a year before the Quest 3 was a big mistake. Hopefully the rumored Quest Pro 2 being made in partnership with LG takes the Quest Pro idea and turns it up to 12. A Quest "Lite" with no controllers, Quest 2 lenses and an XR2 Gen 2 would be a great entry level headset for many that just want to try VR. Of course making it compatible with the Touch Plus and Touch Pro controllers would help as well.