Q2 owner here: I actually want to upgrade to Q3 since the Fresnel lenses on the Q2 are kind of crappy producing tonnes of god-rays, and the 3 step IPD adjustment is far too rudimentary and limited in range(it goes up to 68mm while my eyes are 71mm) because of which, to my eyes, it looks like ass in some scenes. Q3 lenses and flexible IPD should solve all those issues.
Devil's advocate take: Unlike cheap handheld gaming consoles, when it comes to VR, cheap VR devices with large drawbacks might actually be poisoning the well , instead of helping VR uptake. Hear me out:
People will naturally go for the cheapest option when making an impulse buy like this, play with it for a bit, be disappointed by the compromises made to achieve that low price point, return it or let it gather dust, and then give up on VR forever thinking it sucks. The Q3 while being more expensive and less of an impulse buy, might leave less people frustrated and willing to give up on VR and more likely to recommend and tell everyone how awesome VR is. Just a shower thought.
I think also an important metric would be to look at the rate of returns for those devices as well. That should let us know how many customers were actually happy with their VR console.
My biggest issue with the Q3 and why it probably sells much less, despite improving Q2's shortcomings, is it also includes a lot of unnecessary AR gimmicks that needlessly jack up the price and no VR gamer ever asked for. People want to try VR for full immersion escapism, not to look at their apartment/living room in AR with expensive goggles on. They can already do that on their iPhone/iPad.
IMHO they should have just left the AR gimmicks out of the Q3 to keep the price lower and keep the focus on VR gaming. It would have sold much better, but it seems The Zuck really wants to keep pushing AR to people (probably for AR ads and AR shopping in the future).
I have never seen people so excited for VR/AR as they have been by the in-device recording of AR views. Generally everyone is careful to clarify that the real experience is full of warping and distortion, but people are genuinely enjoying even that poor version of what is to come.
VR gaming is maybe not the killer app that VR fans think it is, only Beat Saber has really come close. A lot of us genuinely tried to get into VR gaming (for my part I’ve owned: DK2, Rift, GearVR, Rift S, Quest, Quest 2) but decided 2D gaming is better in the current state of things.
VR gaming interest all depends on the person. I don't think there will be any one single killer app for VR just like there isn't any one singular killer app for a PC or Smartphone. It'll just take years for the one specific app that hooks each individual to be created. I have a few buddies that get online to play Population One with me daily. I have other friends that have no interest in it at all. What's a killer app for me, may not be for you. For me first person shooters are peak VR, but my girlfriend much prefers sports games like tennis, minigolf, and ping pong in VR.
I've got an Index, Q3, and just gave my Q2 to a friend. The Q3 is significantly better than the Q2. I'd probably still use my Index as my primary headset, but I don't feel like buying new controllers. I feel like there is no lag with the Index, whereas it remains an issue with PCVR on the Quest 3, which is bad for competitive play.
As for AR, I have it set as my default state for when I'm not in a VR game and it's great because it helps maintain awareness of your surroundings while having the headset than any prior solution. That said, the quality is fairly low resolution and it wobbles quite a bit. I'm sure AR on the Apple Vision Pro will trounce the Quest 3 AR solution.
The Quest app lets you record mixed reality and there are a decent number of videos of people ordering coffee or baking or whatever in that mode. It turns out that the quality is generally much higher from those recordings than it looks live through the lens.
An example of in camera footage (and narrative saying it is misleading) is at 1:18 in https://youtu.be/Gh_46fSwY4U
I primarily bought my Q3 as a holdover to the Visor. I use the Immersed app and AR definitely is a great feature when using a virtual desktop setup, for drinking coffee and using a real keyboard. I secondarily bought it as a Q1 upgrade for entertainment.
That being said, the AR features still don't hold a candle to the Hololens 2 experience. The hand and environment recognition are still behind, even after 3+ years, and passthrough will never compare to real view. There are tons of visual distortions in the Q3 passthrough to make it usable like the early videos people put out, but for desk work it's fine. Then main issue with Q3 for virtual screens is the uneven pixel density. Words are blurry if not at the center, where you would normally use your eyes to look IRL. This is not peripheral distance, but quick eye glance distance. My understanding is Visor is designing their displays and lenses so this is not an issue.
I recognize there are legit use cases for AR beyond gimmicks, but for that you need GOOD AR, while the Q3 AR feels kind of janky, half baked and screams of cost cutting compromises.
They tried to compromise to get a low priced AR headset to the masses, but in the end fucked it up since the headset is neither low priced enough to be an impulse buy for the masses, nor is the AR good enough to satisfy the tech enthusiasts with money. It ended up being the worst of both worlds, hence the low sales.
Q2 really hit the sweet spot in terms of features to price.
For my experience so far, the color passthrough on Q3 is good enough for gaming, where you don't really need to read anything too closely, but not good enough to use it at the desk for long periods of time.
And actually the passthrough is okay for that too, it's more that it still feels like the screens need to be a bit higher resolution for the Immersed app to be comfortable long-term over my existing desktop and ultrawide monitor.
It's nice to play ping pong or that shooting at fuzzy ball creatures demo game that came with it and be able to chat with my wife or look down at the dogs as they run by and be able to see them well enough. Looking forward to seeing what other mixed reality games come out later (I'm planning to make something myself at some point also).
I'd still love for it to be better, but I'm still pretty happy with it as it is right now. Apple Vision Pro I suspect will be much, much better, but I can't justify its price tag.
the AR on the quest3 so far for me has been a convenient way for me to check my surroundings or do some little tasks without having to remove the headset, put it back again and re-adjust it. I don't have a quest 2 to compare with but this small gimmick seems like a small but important win to me.
You can do that with the pass through on the quest 2. It’s not pretty mind you. But it’s not intended to be anything more than safe guard in case you wonder outside the play boundary you defined.
I’ve got to say, the Quest 2 is a really nice device. It’s obviously not super high quality compared to a lot of other headsets on the market but its compromises are generally well thought out.
On the Quest 2 I never used passthrough because it looked terrible. On Quest 3, I use it as my default lobby because it's just good enough to be preferable to being in AR instead of virtual environment when you're not gaming.
I wonder how much of the AR they can fix in software, but I definitely agree with your sentiment on Q3 AR, though not sure I would call it the worst of both worlds. One thing you can do is use the hand recognition in a VR experience instead of requiring controllers. Not having to pick up controllers to use a wrist glance menu is definitely a nice feature in an experience.
>I wonder how much of the AR they can fix in software
They have a good track record for SW updates with great improvements, but I buy a device for what it offers now, not for hopes and dreams for the future.
>One thing you can do is use the hand recognition in a VR experience instead of requiring controllers.
Q2 also does that in VR since a SW update a while ago.
Then we're definitely different market demographics and it's why I'm still bearish on AR for mainstream gaming. Hear me out. For good AR gaming like that hotwheels demo, you also need a nice and spacious apartment where the AR assets can "land" and also look nice, according to all these demos.
But what if you live in a tight and messy cramped apartment? Do you then start to remodel it so that the AR assets have space and look good? The beauty of VR is that you get complete escapism from your small shitty apartment into wherever fantasy world you choose no matter how bad your living situation is.
Granted, nobody's living situation should be bad, but in any major city right now you can't be too picky if you're not minted, so you take what you get, but that doesn't mean it should stop you from enjoying VR/AR, but with AR being too dependent on the looks of your surroundings, it makes it even more niche.
HoloLens 2 is a difficult one. It has a lot going for it. But, the poor FoV, coupled with only really being able to use your index finger for typing have really made my experience worse.
The worse of it is developing for the thing. Just a complete asinine workflow. Quest is so much better to develop on, it's insane. Props to Valve on that regard as well.
The FOV in real AR glasses has not improved since. Even the newly released are still 50deg or less.
I thought programming for HL2 with MRTK was a nice experience, at least not bad. Most of the rough edges were Unity, which I still have for Oculus, and deploying to HL2, which required the Visual Studio step. I still think MRTK is an awesome library by design, tons of good research went into it, plus it was a whole package with tons of the extras you want in an AR app. Super bummed MS killed both projects.
I just want a good device for seated HOTAS / wheel flight Sim/driving sim use, with a reasonably decent FOV. My old OG Lenovo Explorer was ok for Elite Dangerous as a novelty experience, but I found everything pretty much subpar. You had to be right on the sweet spot and only look straight ahead for a warping kind of screen door effect not to be the only thing you'd see, or was it perhaps a blur?
And the FOV gave me literal blind zones not experienced in triple screens that caused me to take someone out in racing (he came out from the pits just as I passed, I would have seen it on my triples for sure). And in flight Sims, the resolution was so poor nothing could be made out of the instruments.
There's devices like the Pimax Crystal, but here they decided to make it battery powered which contributes to bulk, weight, causing it to be a massive pain in the neck - on top of the battery life issues! Oh and it's obscenely expensive.
To add to that, only my old Samsung Gear has allowed diopter adjustments (glasses). I've yet to see any that allows for someone with mild myopia to use VR without dealing with glass inserts.
There's just so many compromises. Which is why I stick to my triple qhd 32"s and trackir for now.
I'm still using my HP Reverb G2 for seated VR (especially flight simulator ). It's a solid choice for that use case. And there is a version of that headset with eye tracking too (which I do not have)
1000%. The Oculus Rift released in 2012 had an approximate 90' FOV. Meanwhile a freaking decade later and the latest greatest Quest 3 has only managed to improve that by a mediocre 20 extra degrees.
It makes it feel like every game is also secret submarine periscope simulator.
For reference, static FOV in humans (assuming looking straight ahead and not shifting eyes from side to side) is roughly 200 degrees.
Oooh, thanks - will check it out! I got myself a 4090 earlier this year before the price hikes, so I'm hoping to add VR in 2024. Cheers.
EDIT: The FOV is pretty crap, but - if it's this light, headchecking would be far more natural. The fact that they'll sell prescription inserts makes it a native solution. (My previous Lenovo Explorer experience was with contact lenses, which I can't stand anymore!)
Yes, and you get to adjust each degree of movement using sliders - so you can go from zero to lots, depending on how you like it.
Eg for driving I'd have some minimal movement, and less responsive up/down and tilt (rotating your head sideways), whereas for flying I'd have much more movement in general, and a very responsive look up curve which would let me chase another plane with minimal neck movement.
It takes some getting used to, but it really pays off in the long run.
The Apple Vision Pro is coming out next year and it is all about AR and not at all about gaming. When the Vision Pro comes out and brings a new audience to VR, Facebook will just be a software update away from being the cheaper alternative.
>The Apple Vision Pro is coming out next year and it is all about AR and not at all about gaming.
That's just Apple, they were never about gaming in the first place. Developers brought games to their platform but Apple themselves never bothered to promote or invest in gaming the same way Microsoft or Linux/Valve did.
Although that seems to be recently changing with Apple as well.
As an owner of both Quest 2 (two of them!) and Quest 3, I've had ample experience with each device. The Quest 3 offers notable improvements, particularly in MR capabilities, but for those primarily interested in VR, the Quest 2 remains a solid choice. I frequently use my Quest 2 for most VR activities due to its adequate performance and ease of use. While the Quest 3 does boast a higher resolution, the difference isn't overwhelmingly significant in everyday use.
When it comes to PCVR, the higher resolution of Quest 3 is a double-edged sword. Yes, it provides crisper visuals, but it also demands more from your PC, requiring a more powerful system to fully leverage the enhanced resolution.
On the other hand, the Quest 3 shines in its MR features. The color stereoscopic passthrough, despite being somewhat grainy, is impressive and shows a lot of promise for future applications. It's an exciting development that highlights the potential of MR technology.
Don't feel like you need to share, but why do you have so many Quests? Do you play a lot of games? Are there multiplayers you can do with multiple headsets? Any games you'd especially recommend?
I am a Vtuber (though it's not my day job). Out of professional courtesy to anyone or organizations I interact with, I'm keeping a backup. The last thing I would want is to tell my partners that I couldn't show up because my Quest didn't boot up.
For games, I feel that the Q2 is still the best because most games haven’t upgrade their visuals yet and because the original controller has the best tracking. Also it’s about half the price of Q3. It won’t last for long and the frenel lens aren’t great compared to the new fish eye lenses.
Quest Pro has the best form factor. I like the open headset style. Since it has eye tracking, it also has the best performance for PCVR streaming especially for Steam since Steam link supports eye tracking
Quest 3 has the best performance and resolution. Resolution is now good enough for doing work in VR. Some games optimized for it also look close to PCVR visual fidelity. Wireless PCVR streaming is terrible though, and I’m not sure why.
My time with PCVR streaming on the Quest 2 dramatically improved when I upgraded my wireless network, to the point now where I only wirelessly stream except for very high movement games e.g. F123. I thought there was nothing wrong with my previous setup and streaming (PlayStation and Xbox streaming included) was just terrible, but it turns out it was my setup all along.
I bought my Q3 directly from Meta, this analysis would seem to be missing all that data, since it is based on a scrape of Amazon. Some raw numbers would be nice, rather than just the 2:1 ratio
Q2 owner, decided not to upgrade to the Q3 because I want a mid range headset with a DisplayPort connection.
As much as I appreciate wireless PCVR - I am excited for its future but it doesn't do it for me at this stage.
People say that the latency and fidelity are indistinguishable from wired PCVR - that has not been my experience. I have a high end WiFi 6 router where the Q2 is the only device connected in line of sight of the router via 5ghz and my PC is connected via gigabit ethernet. I have also tweaked all the settings, purchased Virtual Desktop and done my best.
It's _fine_ but certainly not delivering anywhere close to what the headset hardware can offer in terms of fidelity.
The worst part is that, though better than wireless, even PCVR over the link cable is kinda rubbish.
Previously to the Q2 I had an HP Reverb G2 and the visual quality was mind blowing - however the controller tracking and software was a disaster. Prior to that I had a Rift 2 and prior to that Lenovo Explorer.
The Quest 2 feels about as good as the Rift 2 - though I think I preferred the Rift 2 because it had little-to-no setup and felt more responsive in games like BeatSaber.
The reviews for the Q3 sing its praises but I have been here before. I have tried the Pico 4 and I know the Q3 is around that level of quality - however the lack of uncompressed, responsive PCVR keeps me away.
If Meta released a Rift 3 - which was just a lighter/thinner Q3 without the battery/SoC - I'd be all over it. I'd love to see them improve the PCVR software, incorporate hand tracking and other such improvements.
Even for productivity, a wired PCVR headset makes more sense as it would be lighter, thinner, have unlimited run time and better latency/quality for work that doesn't suit lossy compression.
The bigscreen beyond basically proves that point - if only it wasn't like $4000 AUD excluding the base stations and controllers haha.
So yeah, I'm sticking to my Q2 until someone somewhere releases a decent mid ranged PCVR headset.
I got Quest 3 and was actually surprised by how well it works for PCVR with a Link cable. The key is to use H264 and crank up the bitrate to something like 800 mbps.
You will need a good USB port on your motherboard. Preferably USB 3.2
At this bitrate I can't notice compression anymore.
I upgraded from a day1 vive to the quest 3 last week, boy what an insane progress (and for half the 2016 price!), except for tracking, can't beat lasers I guess, but it's good enough.
I have 4 Q2s (for the fam). The Q3 is better but not enough better. I tried the Vision Pro, and it’s not even close. Someone who actually really cares about this stuff will buy the Vision.
I mention that only because the increase in quality really needs to be able to be perceived to justify the increase in price. Honestly think the Vision Pro visual fidelity and UX is 10X.
I’m curious how the Q2+Q3 compares with the Vision Pro once out.
but they are not even in the same price bracket,
if I'm considering the vision pro (3.5k ?) then my comparison would be against the new varjo xr-4 releases that are around 4k (or 10k for the varifocal lenses version).
The quest 3 is almost 7 times cheaper than the vision pro (499 vs 3499) and provides incredible value for the price. I doubt very many people are actually going to buy the initial release of the vision pro, who is paying almost 4k after tax for a devkit besides developers and rich enthusiasts?
These are awesome hobby devices to hack on. I’m not very experienced with graphics programming but I had a ton of fun developing with the SDK, wrote a blog post on it recently if anyone is interested in learning more about it.
Good news for me since I started development on a Quest 1 game 4 months before the Quest 2 came out, and am damn near finally going to release it right after the damn Quest 3 comes out!
For those with either q2 or q3, what do you use it for? Can q3 be used for productivity purposes (e.g virtual office) or is the tech not there yet? I bought a quest 2 and tried boxing and beat saber (both impressive), but the novelty of VR wore off and I haven’t touched it since (i.e. in years). I think a lot of quest 2 owners were similar. Is quest 3 any different?
I tried the last year's pro. We bought two for productivity in the company, hoping for better meetings in remote, colab designing in 3d in AR etc.
The hardware was definitely there, but software definitely not. And on top of that, forced FB integration which sucks in business context (you can't just have an office device, because it's tied to a specific person's private account).
Gave up shortly after that, and didn't have the time to check it again. So perhaps things changed during the year.
I bought one recently, it's the first VR headset I own.
As far as using it for productivity as a screen, it's more usable than I was expecting
but not really the first choice I would opt for. it remind me of the days where computer had CRT monitors or early LCD the text is not blurry but the resolution not good enough that you can stuff a lot of thing in the screen.
the reason I bought one is to see how far we've come since the last time I used VR, which was around 5 years ago at work where there was a colleague showcasing the work his team was doing related to medical visualization software, they had a demo room to sell the project to upper management. I think they had steam + htc headsets.
so far my verdict has been that there's still around 10 years before these headset can replace my desktop monitors.
with an affordable price for :
- +60ppd,
- varifocal lenses,
- good large field of view (on both direction).
because currently (for me at least):
- objects that are too close break the 3d or at least make it very uncomfortable and require you to close one eye or another to see things.
- the resolution is good but nowhere close enough that you forget you're in a headset, and the thing good resolution would enable qualitatively different content.
- the FOV because currently it feel like you're wearing thick scuba diving glasses. I don't know it this got more to do with the distance of the screens to eye or how the steam + vive + quest were made.
- this I think is more of quest thing than a general VR thing since the steam one didn't have this when I tried it, good visual overlap between the right and left eye. but when there's not enough in some angle the vision get uncomfortable.
I intend to use mine to dabble a little bit in my free time around what a 'desktop environment' would look like in these settings, stuff like spatial computing but with a focus on the other way around compared to what's get shown here of more generally in the media. like a portable workshop that can have your projects laying in a room, your 3d designs in another, A monitoring room with different dashboards, graphs, KPIs etc to track projects.
more generally exploring what kind of new UX this environment can enable.
What I find the most amazing is how good VRChat is compared to Meta Horizons. I mean, meta spends billions on it, VRChat what? A couple million?
Yet VRChat content looks better, is more engaging and much much less rubber tile / all ages than horizons. Meta seems to be putting child friendliness as the top design goal, leading to a really bland experience for adults. Because most of us like a bit of edginess (and in my personal case, a lot of edginess). This is why most adults don't enjoy playing hello kitty or watch cartoons. Unfortunately all of horizons is exactly that. One big boring playground for infants.
So they're spending 1000x more than their competitors to make an equivalent product that most of their customer base likes less.
this is why I think meta wastes money. Not because I think that "metaverse" doesn't have a future because I think it certainly does. I just think they go about it wrong and spend way too much on too little result, as well as the wrong result.
I do enjoy Beat Sabre as well but WMG is what I click the most hours on.
The free ISS experience is what I stick on when introducing new people to the device because it’s totally mind bending floating about space (but also really safe and easy to figure out).
I do also like streaming games to my Q3 via my gaming PC. Got a few games from Steam VR which are quite fun. Google Earth is surprisingly enjoyable too - for those occasions I just want to explore a 3D world without any real objective.
I've never used that ISS thing, but isn't starting someone on a VR app with locomotion a bad idea for the sake of VR sickness? I've been paranoid about it since I gave it to myself first messing with VR.
I've since gained "VR legs", but that experience is burned into my memory.
> Google Earth is surprisingly enjoyable too
You can still use that? I loved it back when I had such poor internet that it didn't work right (the beta option to change perspective (scale/zoom) was mindblowing), but heard google were shutting it down. Closest I got to an alternative is "wander" which is just street view, no 3d models.
> I've never used that ISS thing, but isn't starting someone on a VR app with locomotion a bad idea for the sake of VR sickness? I've been paranoid about it since I gave it to myself first messing with VR. I've since gained "VR legs", but that experience is burned into my memory.
Good question. VR sickness isn't so much of an issue because:
+ they only spend max 5 minutes on it (it's more a demo than a long term gaming session
+ the motion is controlled by the player. So they can go as intensive or chilled as they like
> You can still use that? I loved it back when I had such poor internet that it didn't work right (the beta option to change perspective (scale/zoom) was mindblowing), but heard google were shutting it down. Closest I got to an alternative is "wander" which is just street view, no 3d models.
This was a Steam VR application rather than via the web browser. That said, I haven't been on it in recent months so Google might have shutdown whatever APIs the desktop application hit.
which one provides more comprehensive and constant surveillance and streams the highest resolution highest quality biometric data to select partners who may have exiting opportunities to offer me or a business interest in knowing my business!?
Bigscreen Beyond is your best bet at 127 grams, it's a fraction of the weight of all other headsets on the market. The Quest 3, without a battery strap, which you need for comfort, is over 500 grams.
What's absurd is that any sort of non-local/online account is required at all to use a hardware device you own.
Half the reason VR's adoption and progress is so slow is Facebook buying Oculus which poisoned the well for the vast majority of the hardcore gaming / high spec userbase, who typically popularizes and drives innovation in the hardware space.
Devil's advocate take: Unlike cheap handheld gaming consoles, when it comes to VR, cheap VR devices with large drawbacks might actually be poisoning the well , instead of helping VR uptake. Hear me out:
People will naturally go for the cheapest option when making an impulse buy like this, play with it for a bit, be disappointed by the compromises made to achieve that low price point, return it or let it gather dust, and then give up on VR forever thinking it sucks. The Q3 while being more expensive and less of an impulse buy, might leave less people frustrated and willing to give up on VR and more likely to recommend and tell everyone how awesome VR is. Just a shower thought.
I think also an important metric would be to look at the rate of returns for those devices as well. That should let us know how many customers were actually happy with their VR console.
My biggest issue with the Q3 and why it probably sells much less, despite improving Q2's shortcomings, is it also includes a lot of unnecessary AR gimmicks that needlessly jack up the price and no VR gamer ever asked for. People want to try VR for full immersion escapism, not to look at their apartment/living room in AR with expensive goggles on. They can already do that on their iPhone/iPad.
IMHO they should have just left the AR gimmicks out of the Q3 to keep the price lower and keep the focus on VR gaming. It would have sold much better, but it seems The Zuck really wants to keep pushing AR to people (probably for AR ads and AR shopping in the future).