What is your use case? And is vr popular in brazil? If so why? Sorry, genuine questions. I love the idea of vr and made some rather nice looking experiences in them, unpublished, and was amazed. PC linked tho, and soace related. I built a bunch of ships interiors that made me want to literally live in them.
Double the RAM, higher resolution, color passthrough, controllers that aren't tracked by the headset (which basically means you get a wider area of motion), pancake lenses (a nice feature that puts your face closer to the screen and allows for slimmer headsets), reduction in weight.
Because the Quest 3 is another product, this is the pro version. The consumer version will get released later I guess, and probably with a price closer to the current Quest 2.
If there even is another consumer version. It sounds like Pro is Facebook's ultimate objective for monetizing this, and Quest 1/2 was just a beta test for them to perfect their tech.
It's the other way around - Quest Pro is the one testing new tech (mixed reality, face tracking, foveated rendering, self-tracking controllers). I imagine they're going to hone these features over the next couple of years and include them in the consumer models once there is better economics/proven product market fit.
This isn't a Quest 3 because it's aimed at a different audience. This isn't for gaming and entertainment, it's for productivity. Look at the list of software they are highlighting. It's design and business stuff. When they say "Pro" that's actually an accurate modified. Unlike the "iPad Pro" which is just a more expensive iPad.
> Meta Quest Pro comes with all the goods and then some so you can start working, creating and collaborating — Meta Quest Touch Pro Controllers, charging dock with rapid USB-C power adapter, 10 advanced VR/MR sensors, 256GB storage, 12GB RAM, and a Snapdragon XR2+ Qualcomm processor.
Is there even any software that can take advantage of this? Nothing in Meta’s Horizons, afaict.
I don’t really know if the specs are good for bang for your buck. All I know is that the Quest 2 specs run the existing library pretty well. Paying 5x the price, I would expect a jump from WiiU to PS5, but is there any software that comes close?
The 4x resolution sounds great, but the Quest 2 resolution was already pretty solid. It’s still a great movie watching experience. I’m sure it’s even better with the Pro, but not $1500-for-a-niche-device better
The pricing is a bit of a sticker shock, but if anyone can make the $1,500 price point work, it's the company that also sells a $400 headset.
What's really interesting to me is that this headset seems to echo Apple's (purported) interests in a "premium" hardware generation targeted at enthusiasts and developers. The Quest is ultimately a leftover from the Oculus acquisition, so it should be really interesting to see how this hardware evolves under Meta's leadership.
Really? The Quest 2 is definitely a Facebook-made device, but I believe the original Quest was inherited from Oculus's design labs (even though Facebook ultimately took over).
Edit: I did some digging, and the situation is actually pretty complicated. Facebook bought Oculus in 2014, but they continued operating as an "autonomous subsidiary" for a few years before being absorbed into Meta and rebranded as Reality Labs. I guess it really depends on your frame of thought, but I seem to be wrong here.
Not really. In fact, if you put aside the standalone features, this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index. If you do consider the standalone functionality, the internals are hardly an upgrade over the Quest 2.
Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).
> The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire.
The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
Sorry I didn't exactly come in at the base-level here :p
The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head.
TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
IMHO the wireless is a killer feature. Having cables attached seriously limits your design space for games. Room scale is a lot less practical because you can get tangled up in the cables. VR is best when you're not sitting in a chair and can move freely, even if you're stuck in a small area.
Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
In Lex Fridman's podcast, Carmack says he's officially only working 1 day at Meta in advisory capacity, though sometimes chimes in on other days as well. He also says he wants to completely focus on AGI, so I wouldn't rely on Carmack to push the VR field forward in the near future.
if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
You can, personally I never felt the need to tether myself for better battery life. 1-2 hours is about the perfect length for a game session, and I don't think I've been able to run down my Quest 1 past 40% battery before getting sick. It seems like a good tradeoff in retrospect.
> this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index
Could you expand on this?
Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work.
It depends on how you want to argue. For me, refresh rate and FOV matter most. Low refresh headsets make me nauseated, and the Quest 1 can easily start to verge on that sickness after 30 minutes to an hour of playtime. The Index did a good job at mitigating that sickness feeling, and the FOV seems very desirable if people want to use these headsets as monitor replacements.
Quest 1 hasn't been sold in over two years, so I'm not sure it's a good benchmark.
The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes.
Meta will need cheap headsets to get adoption of their platform.
I reckon the Pro has a healthy margin and will targets companies. They will use Accenture and peddle the Microsoft suite VR to sell tens of thousands of these to companies for remote work, and most of them will barely be used .
Meta can stem the losses of the VR division, and a Quest 3 will come in a while.
Based on the marketing material it seems that the Quest Pro is targeted at enterprises where a $1500 device which helps improve employee productivity isn't that big a deal.
Spending $1500 per employee for a fancy gadget might not be a big deal for Facebook and Microsoft, but they are in for a shock if they expect the rest of the corporate world to cough up the cash.
Not every employee at a company gets the most powerful computer, nor does everyone get the expensive software. This is targeted at companies and employees who can benefit from the tech such as architects.
Even Facebook / Microsoft don't give out VR headsets to all employees.
This is also a first gen product, so this is not the version most companies may be adopting.
The livestream just invited Satya Nadella as the "one more thing" to intoduce Microsoft Teams and Office 365 for VR, showing how Meta hopes this will be used.
Enterprise companies are too cheap to justify $1500 per head for a gimmick, though.
Doing your desk job in VR seems like a gimmick. Meetings in VR are a gimmick. Collaborative real-time design and creative work in 3D - that sounds like it's worth $1500.
Beyond Zoom you mean? It might do. Being autistic I tend to see meetings as an organised exchange to information rather than a body language thing, but I can see what you mean.
Yeah, I think people underestimate the compelling nature of diverse expression. Its more fun to hang out in a game with emotes than it is to hang out in a voice call.
Will headsets replace zoom? I can't say. There are other convenience factors there. But hanging out in a virtual place is empirically compelling.
> Yeah, I think people underestimate the compelling nature of diverse expression.
In my experience whether they find this compelling depends a lot on the respective person. "Manager types" might like it, but quite some programmers would rather detest it.
I believe I'll be able to replace my monitors to do my desk job with a VR headset within 10 years. Rather than having 2 monitors of different sizes and resolutions on a desk, why not just have as many virtual monitors with exactly the size, position, and distance I want? In fact, why have monitors at all? Just position the windows in arbitrary space in front of me.
Desktop computing with a VR headset is somewhat possible right now, but I am not quite able to stomach the resolution limitations of the Quest 2. I'm looking forward to devices like SimulaVR [0], which intend to fully replace desktop computing with a self-contained VR headset (plus a mouse and keyboard).
In my mind, there are two and a half problems to solve to make it possible. One is pixel density. It has to at least be equivalent (or very close) to our own eyes. Two is comfort, both physical (ventilation, weight) and health-wise (eye strain). Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. I think it's a gimmick for now, but as soon as the pixel density gets high enough it becomes more interesting.
> Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
I can't imagine that. I think it'll end up being a normal desk, mouse, keyboard painted into the VR world by using the passthrough cameras.
Something else I've noticed when I put on my Quest 2 is the lighting. I don't like the way the lights in my office feel like they glare in my eyes. Putting on the Quest 2 and hitting a virtual environment gives the feel of indirect lighting and I find it much more comfortable. It's like being outside.
That comfort doesn't last very long, but if I could get away with it for 2h at a time, and have high DPI virtual screens, I think I'd at least try a virtual office.
They also need to make it so I can drink a cup of coffee with the headset on or the whole thing is DOA. Lol.
Pixel density high enough for acceptable text is already possible, just prohibitively expensive. See Varjo's headsets, for example - at the center of the display they have 70 pixels-per-degree (for comparison the Quest 2 has about 20).
> high enough for acceptable text is already possible
I don't understand this. I code and read in VR almost every day. With proper aliasing, it's extremely acceptable as is. Font characters per degree has to be increased, of course, but Quest 2 is about the same as a 720p virtual monitor.
I actually think pixel density is one of the easier battle to win. Getting a cheap, lightweight, strain-free device to users is the real requirement.
For now, I can't handle more than ~30 mins with any VR/MR/AR device, but if I can actually wear one for several hours and be productive using one - I will be convinced we've turned the corner on this tech.
Low resolutions aside, headsets are still way too heavy and bulky, at least in my experience. Some even get quite hot. I can imagine that the weight and heat could be solved over time, but the bulkiness seems like a very big hurdle. When using lenses you need the distance, so it's hard to see how we can miniaturize headsets without a brand new technological innovation.
This is our (SimulaVR's) vision, basically. Our target is to have pixel density/optical quality and comfort good enough to work comfortably.
The pixel density is there (and better than quest pro), and we just need to finish the comfort features -- passthrough, mechanical comfort, integrated host.
You're looking at it from the perspective of a higher-end knowledge worker. $1500 to strap a 1984-esque telescreen on your call center employee and have them work from home instead of a cubicle would save a bundle.
If you get motion sickness after 20 minutes of a seated experience that is running at full frame rate, with no artificial locomotion, you are decidedly in the minority. It is not impossible, but it is far from common.
Not all - beat saber you're still, workrooms meetings you're still.
Sim Racing, any game where you fly or run around - those are artificial locomotion and can definitely take some getting used to for some (not all) people.
Everyone I know has a cap of around 20 min for their VR experience, some for motion sickness, some headaches. It's a small sample size of just people I know, but it's significant enough to mention.
This is already possible with Quest 2. Supported keyboards are tracked and show up through a "passthrough" window, where you can see the camera feed of them and your hands.
This kinda of crap makes me laugh. We have companies desperate to get people back in the office because they say working from home ruins morale or creativity, etc. and at the same time we got companies saying the future is that people should commute into the office to put on a fucking VR headset to have meetings in a virtual office. Jesus wept.
How much does it cost to give someone three monitors? With the headset and something like Immersed* you can use this instead of giving your remote employee a bunch of monitors, which is also nice for the employee who might live in a studio apartment and doesn't have a lot of space, or an employee who wants to travel.
I used immersed with quest 2, but the resolution still bothered me a lot more than something like beat saber.
Now that the quest pro is available, I've already pre-ordered it for this use case. I'd love every project I work on to have different "screens" in different environments to put my mind into each project.
Once resolution is high enough it will be compelling but imo Immersed is held back by current headset resolutions.
I used Immersed at length for two months and I had to stop from the frequency of eye fatigue and tiredness at shorter intervals than I currently experience with regular monitor work.
Until that happens I don’t see companies sending this out, not to mention things like motion sickness some people get even with low motion VR like immersed.
To be fair I had the same problem with Immersed (the fatigue) but luckily that's a hardware problem and not a software problem. In time I think the headsets will get good enough that it's not a problem for most people.
In a way this is exactly what they said about GUI in 1983. People looked at the early products like Apple Lisa and Xerox Star, and said: “Serious businesses aren’t going to be spending thousands of dollars per user on gimmicks like the mouse and high-resolution graphics. Office tasks don’t need that.” — And they were right, but only within the narrow field of what office work on computers was like in 1983. WordPerfect and 1-2-3 didn’t need the GUI. Excel and the web browser did.
I’m not saying VR/AR is going to turn out the same way, but it seems at least possible that new affordances will create new kinds of applications again.
If it solves the “only one conversation at a time” problem with online meetings then yes. I’d rather be in a virtual room with proximal volume than a Zoom meeting with people yelling over each other
Both of you should know that there are multiple applications that already solve this problem in VR! Most of the "social" chat applications and most of the "professional" chat applications have proximity-based chat volume. Even most games have it. It's a super handy feature and a natural one for VR.
Do they? I think what folks are talking about here is having someone sound louder to someone who is closer to them in a 3d environment vs softer to someone farther away. This doesn't seem possible in, say, Zoom.
Yes, I'm aware of what they're saying. It is indeed the default for most VR applications. I can't think of a VR application that uses a global volume for voices; it's all local and diminishes based on distance from source. A universal volume for anyone on a map is weird and awkward, and most game engines have sound differ in volume based on distance and location by default. Most VR applications, even the "professional" ones, are built on top of game engines, because it's a lot easier than writing everything from scratch.
I didn't see it in this page, but previous announcements put the battery life at 1-2 hours (unverified).
I know it's fun to hate on Meta, but this honestly looks like it resolves most of the gripes I had with the Quest 2, aside from the whole Facebook integration piece... It looks like a solid piece of hardware.
Completely different price points though. The Quest 2 was priced for the general public, this is a specialty device for hobbyists and it looks like they are targeting corporations. Hobbyists already have had more advanced options available at this price point, so I'm not totally sure I understand the market for this.
It’s not in Meta’s best interest to obsolete the Quest 2. VR is already a tough sell, and like other “consoles”, significant revenue comes from selling apps.
If they tell the regular users (who spend $50 per game) that they can’t purchase new games without a new headset, I bet most would ditch the technology.
The original Quest was released May 2019, and the Quest 2 was released Oct. 2020. Maybe a lot of the early adopters felt burned, but the Quest1's short life obviously didn't put much of a damper in the Quest 2's sales.
Are there many apps or games that only work on the Quest 2? I have the original Quest and I still use it several times a week. It's basically the Beat Saber machine an this point, but it's still pretty fun.
I don't think these are very comparable to the Quest Pro.
It appears neither of those have face tracking, and the Pimax doesn't have eye tracking. Besides that, both of those are PCVR (not standalone) and the Aero doesn't even come with controllers despite costing nearly $2000.
Your account just doesn’t say Facebook erm Meta on it. You are still subject to all the bad things they do with automated bans, shifting TOS, social bla, etc.
This is a question of trustworthiness; Meta/Facebook (if you are paying attention) has none. Better to act as if they will misuse your personal information or otherwise do something unsavory because they have done so many times in the past.
You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps, converting your "Oculus" account to a "Horizon" account to unlink your Facebook from your Meta or whatever (who knows!).
I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can *not* be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again and install software updates in broken UIs with no progress indication etc.
The only thing I use it for anymore is if somebody's over and wants to try VR, I let them to the tutorial demo and maybe play some Superhot (which hasn't broken for lack of updates ... yet!). Unfortunately streaming that to the TV via Chromecast from the app doesn't work anymore for Zuck knows what reason.
Consumer tech is so hostile and frustrating, I really just can not deal with it anymore. Sorry for the rant.
> I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can not be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again
Your knowledge and experience does not reflect current reality. Multiple logins haven't been required since the launch of the Quest 2. I didn't have a Quest 1, so I can't comment there.
> You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps
This is false. Only one account is needed. Sometimes individual apps will require a login, but that's exceedingly rare, or allows you to login with other devices, to the app, outside of the Quest ecosystem. This is not a fault of Meta, it's just the reality of third party credentials. I don't recall the last app I had to
If you buy a headset now, you would make a Meta account that would be used for everything. That's it.
If you had a Facebook account and are ok with continuing with the Facebook account, you're done.
If you had a Facebook account and you want to convert it to a Meta account, you can choose to do this, then you're done.
All three situations above use a single account for all apps, besides those that are meant to be accessible cross platform.
This isn't some unique Meta or VR. These are growing pains of new tech. This is what happens with all new tech. We'll see dozens of companies grow, die, and be acquired, and dozens of products change hands and disappear. This is the MO for all new tech that all of us are intimately familiar with.
In this particular case, with this particular product and company, the churn has happened, and we should see some stability now.
If you want complete stability, you're in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong website. But there's no reason to be irrational about it.
"It's all very simple if you're an industry expert following $company's every move!"
There is no way to use all features of a Quest without logging in _at least_ twice (once on a phone, once on the device itself, because some features are inexplicably only accessible through the app). If you've had it for a while, you've also had to deal with (potentially non-exhaustive list):
- an Oculus account (comes (came?) in linked/unlinked flavours)
- a Facebook account
- a Meta account (is that the same as the above? who knows!)
- a Horizon account (what even is Horizon?)
From the perspective of somebody who just bought the damn thing to use it, as far as I can tell none of these were avoidable if you followed the default flows. There's probably more now. That's ignoring steps on the phone, and linking steps between devices through URLs needing to be opened on a computer and all of that faff.
I'm sure there's a secret code phrase I could've garnered from some Reddit with 10k users that, if I had said it to Support, would have let me skip one of these steps - but who does that?
Maybe that is what they were trying to avoid but in practice they made it much worse. Oculus had accounts before they were bought by FB, it was pretty much like a Steam account for better or for worse. Then by the Quest 2 you had to use your Facebook account, which meant you had to verify your facebook account on your phone (maybe there was a work around, I didn't find it) and it asked for your phone number and then FB is texting you saying some robot with a woman's name just friended you, and you have this duummy account that is always posting what you are doing on the quest etc. etc.
Yeah I am sure there is a way to turn off all that junk and opt out of installing the app or giving them your phone number but its full of anti-patterns to make you do it. What a hassle.
You can't give them credit for solving a problem they created. If Nvidia made me log in to Facebook to use my graphics card, I wouldn't cheer when they gave me the option to make an Nvidia account instead.
I don't know if you realize the hilarity of this, but GeForce Experience (the only way to get auto-updates for Nvidia drivers) requires an Nvidia account, with options to login via Google, Facebook, et al
Kind of infuriating. But not as much as remembering to go and update my drivers... :\",
It was pretty simple for me to convert my Facebook account to a Meta only account. The first time I put on my headset after that change it asked if I wanted to unlink my facebook account and create a new account. I had to pick a new username and password, and re-enter my pairing code. But that was it. I was actually surprised it asked me.
I did this and they recently did something with the accounts (forcing you to get a metaverse account I think?) that turned into a massive headache. In the end I was only able to get it working again by creating a new account (or subaccount?) and redoing all of the Quest Link stuff. Even now it complains that my account isn't set up properly if I use the built-in store, although for now it is working. The whole thing is hugely confusing and the only point seemed to be to try to shove Metaverse down my throat.
I do have to say that Quest Link over WiFi works amazingly well and lets you break out of the walled garden to get to the more interesting corners of VR. It also lets you run stuff that would be way too heavy for the mobile-phone level processor on the Quest. Only downside is the WiFi eats a lot of battery power, so one of those headbands with an extra battery is almost required, but since they improve the weight distribution of the headset it's not a terrible buy.
A Meta account is a facebook account by another name. It's hard to trust any sort of _required_ account system that originates from their ecosystem these days.
It requires an account owned by Facebook. I don't do that company the courtesy of using their pretentious, bullshit, fake rebranding, out of disrespect.
Do you trust that Facebook has neither the capability nor the incentive to develop the capability to track you and combine all that data into a profile? I do not.
Facebook has shadow profiles for people who don’t use the service.
I would say it's a delicate balance, with heavy batteries being the most annoying for heavy users (the target audience, from what I can tell), who will have pocket battery packs, or low moment-of-inertia placements, anyways.
I personally don't want any unnecessary weight on my face since I sometimes use my headsets for 8 hours at a time, for coding. For comparison, something like the nreal air [1] is only 79g!
I stream my desktop, with a few virtual screens, using ImmersedVR [1], but other options are available, like VirtualDesktop [2] (over local/remote network), which can be used with something like ShadowPC for full cloud. Others I know code completely in the native browser with the multi-screen interface you see in Meta commercials. Native is still a work in progress, but you can sideload android apps to put them into their own windows.
For desktop streaming, you can use your desktop keyboard/mouse, or a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. For native apps, you use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. The headset sees/tracks the (supported) keyboard with the passthrough cameras and shows a passthrough window/overlay, where it is.
I have no doubt that virtual displays are the future, but probably not until form factors are like the nreal air [3], which I think is still too limited for resolution. Next gen, I'll probably switch over. People will probably be happy enough once PPD triples.
I have and enjoy the Quest2. I'm not seeing much that would make me want a Quest Pro for an extra $1100. The pro looks more comfortable, the color passthrough is cool, and I respect the new lens and resolution upgrade, but again, $1100? Not worth it to me.
For me it'll depend on the magnitude of the improvement, especially in resolution. If it's a serious improvement, I could see it as viable for productive work and not just games, in which case it might be worth the money.
It's not. The meta site is low on specs, but they mentioned in the video that it's got 37% more pixels (and a bit higher density in the middle)
This means that for every 3 pixels on the quest 2 you now have 4. Not exactly a huge increase IMO. What's needed to reach the equivalent of a 24" 1080p monitor at say 2-3 feet away, still needs like a 2-4x increase in pixel per degree.
The price tag does feel too rich (but then again it's not aimed at retail). Thing is, the leap from Quest 2 to Quest Pro feels comparable to the leap between consecutive console generations (e.g. PS4-PS5) - it's iterative improvement, but not ground breaking. In the case of consoles, you don't expect the price tag to change that much, though, so it makes the Quest's big price hike a bit hard to swallow.
The other thing is, I suspect the Quest 2 price point was heavily subsidised, so maybe we're just seeing the real cost of a VR headset when it's advertised to what's perceived as a less price sensitive audience (i.e. businesses).
> I didn't see it in this page, but previous announcements put the battery life at 1-2 hours (unverified).
I still find it weird they haven't shown any mention of incorporating the Bobo VR solution to battery life problems, where there's a secondary battery pack on a magnetic mount and you can swap it out without taking the headset off.
Probably will support being used connected to the power, no?
In general, if you will use more than two hours straight probably you will sit at your chair. If not, yeah, it will be a problem.
Plus, they are just a single AA in each controller. Swapping takes like 30 seconds. I use NiMH rechargeables and just swap between a couple of pairs of them whenever necessary.
Good question, the new controllers have multiple cameras and are doing inside out tracking now, I'd guess that they use a lot more power than the Quest 2 controllers do.
I had selected Canada but I will reselect it. Tried it a few more times and when I enter in my postal code into the field labelled “postal code” it tells me it is an invalid zip code.
Once I switched from Safari on iOS to Chrome on MacOS it worked.
Back when I ordered a Quest 2 I had to use a space somewhere in my zip code for it to work. Like "123 45" or "12 345". Do not remember the variant that worked!
> Its screens offer a respectable 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye with a maximum 90Hz refresh rate, plus new display tech that Meta says offers 75 percent more contrast than the Quest 2’s.
VR lenses mean that uniform display pixels result in non-uniform pixels per degree to the eye. Not sure if the effective resolution has changed but almost certain the display panel is uniform pixel density.
I was wondering if they mean 4x the screen resolution or the camera resolution since its in the mixed reality section. Also without even knowing the resolution/refresh rate/vertical/horizontal fov it would be hard to justify a pre order.
It's the passthrough camera res yes, they mentioned this in the presentation. 4X is easy to believe because the Q2's passthrough resolution is really low. Of course those cams were initially specced only for tracking so that makes sense.
It's strange that the display resolution is not mentioned anywhere on meta's site though. Overall this spec sheet is pretty useless.
During the presentation they mentioned "37% more pixels" than quest 2, and more density in the center due to the new lenses. I assume the 2160x2160 ventured on some sites is pretty much correct and the Quest 2-like 1830x1920 is not. Would be great to get actual confirmation though.
That’s content dependent of course. The screen refresh rate is 72 or 90Hz. No 120Hz mode like Quest 2, apparently. I wonder if it’s limited by the backlight computation.
Sad to see it's still LCD so you don't get actual blacks. Any word on if it still feels like having a scuba mask on or if you can see in the periphery?
I feel what you're saying though. I loved the first Quest and was heavy into VR for a bit but after an hour of the Quest 2 it ended up in the drawer. It's useless for horror games or movies because black simply does not exist - it's generous to call it grey.
That would be good too. There's a ton of room to increase brightness in these headsets. Like a factor of 10 would be welcome and still wouldn't be nearly as bright as a real outdoor scene.
Impressive how much processing power you can fit into such a svelte headset in 2022.
The price, while steep, is not outrageous compared to something like an iPhone. But I still haven't seen a "killer app" for VR so it's not a "daily driver" like a phone would be. The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
> The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
Agreed. Whether you agree with how Meta does things or not (I don't), they have made it very clear that they see the Quest as a locked down, Meta-controlled ecosystem.
I happen to use an iPhone, which arguably pioneered this sort of thing, but I feel like Meta are taking it to the next level. They have much higher rev-shares, (I think it's 40-60%), they have tighter control, require a Facebook account to use it (quite different to an Apple account to access cloud features), and while an iPhone is quite functional without the AppStore and iCloud with the web and built-in functionality, I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup.
The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much* lower than Apple.
> they have tighter control
Than the iPhone? The Quest can be used in SteamVR like any other headset. Third-party apps can be sideloaded, and the bootloader is (semi) unlocked. Not sure how they're even comparable.
> require a Facebook account to use it
A Meta account now, disconnected from the social network. How is this different than an Apple account?
> I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup
Do you have a Quest? I've used mine entirely as a PCVR setup, I don't think I've used a FB service in years besides the store.
* EDIT: Discussed below, "much" is maybe a bit too far. Seems like the final split is roughly the same, though AppLab doesn't take a cut of IAP.
> The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much lower than Apple.
How is that much lower than Apple? If you do under a million a year on the App Store or in the second year of an iOS subscription it's 85/15, else it's 70/30 (unless you have a better backroom deal).
Err, maybe I'm mistaken, but this seems different than the above discussion.
From what I know, Apple takes 30% of paid app sales in the app store. In-app purchases, though, drop to a 15% take after the first year (or that's my read from the article).
Contrast this with AppLab, which takes 30% of paid app sales, but doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases.
I'll retract the "much" lower point since I assume this results in roughly the same final take. Games on non-mobile have a higher initial cost, which probably balances the lack of post-sale revenue.
Regardless, I don't think this makes the Oculus more locked down than an iPhone, since you can always bypass their store and sideload or run apps directly from your PC, which Apple isn't offering.
You can sideload apps for free on the Quest and Apple requires a dev account for $99 a year to sideload anything more than a trivial app or two. The Quest definitely feels objectively less locked down than iOS IMHO.
Yep, plus Zuck himself has publicly criticized Apple and said they aren't gonna go down that route. Look at all of the mainstream consoles, PS5, Nintendo Switch, etc: none of them allow you to sideload anything. And Meta even went a step further than that with the semi-unlocked bootloader. That is unprecedented, most Android phones don't even have that.
People tend to conflate FAANGs with each other. One bad Apple ruins the bunch.
With a normal keyboard? You've been able to bring a keyboard into VR for a while (from a fairly short list of supported models, at the moment) on the Quest 2 even.
Does anyone know if you can get corrective lenses for these pancake style lenses? They seem to be closer to the face. One of the things I actually enjoy about the Quest 2 is that I have lenses for them so I take off my glasses to use it, which is very nice.
one of the interesting accommodations in the Quest Pro is that you can easily slot it over glasses. It has a dial to adjust the eye distance to the lens so you can just can just dial it to the right spot.
Cubicles (even the virtual ones) are not conductive to facilitating collaboration and inducing spontaneous exchange of ideas in an enterprise setting. We will all be taking 10 hours of calls in noisy virtual openspace!
Wow, no built-in speakers/headphones? Ignoring the sticker shock for a moment, for $1500 that seems like a big oversight. The ones on my Index are incredible quality and can't be heard by anyone near me even when the volume is pumped up, but they're selling these $50 Meta Quest Pro VR Earphones separately? Feels kind of like they're adding insult to injury.
Separately, I still have a hard time with my friends Quest controllers compared to the Valve knuckles. Something about how the Valve controls grip your hands, instead of you actively gripping them, it's just so much more natural. I'm really surprised these new controllers don't have the same style of straps built-in.
The speakers are built into the headset itself, one on each side near the temple. The product shots on the Meta page don't show them off well, but the grills are occasionally visible in some of the videos.
£1500 and it still costs another £90 to connect it to your PC?
Unless I'm missing something, charging that much for a proprietary cable just sounds like an attempt to lock in to their ecosystem and app store, and prevent this being used as a dumb VR interface to another system.
I can understand it on the budget consumer device, but here it's a little cheap.
I think the cable is just a fibre-optic USB-C (thunderbolt?) cable. This is probably necessary to get the 5m range. I know for Thunderbolt 3 cables > 2m you had to go fibre optic and they were surprisingly expensive ($100+). It would surprise me if you couldn't plug in another USB-C cable with the correct protocol support here.
It is not a proprietary cable. It is a 5 meter long USB-C cable capable of 3A (it doesn't say the wattage, but Quest 2 uses QC 3.0 which is 18W) which does 5gbps data as well. It is an active fiber optic cable which is necessary because the USB 3.1 gen 1 (5gbps) spec doesn't allow for passive cables over 2 meters.
The XR2 is severely downclocked on the Quest 2 and not hitting its potential at all because of thermals. Carmack has complained about how underused it is on occasion. If the XR2+ allows for a higher default clock because of better thermals, it'll perform significantly better.
1,107 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 364 ms ] threadAnd probably I will buy it in the first opportunity. haha
Quest 2 256gb - $499
Quest Pro 256gb - $1499
> Meta Quest Pro comes with all the goods and then some so you can start working, creating and collaborating — Meta Quest Touch Pro Controllers, charging dock with rapid USB-C power adapter, 10 advanced VR/MR sensors, 256GB storage, 12GB RAM, and a Snapdragon XR2+ Qualcomm processor.
Is there even any software that can take advantage of this? Nothing in Meta’s Horizons, afaict.
The 4x resolution sounds great, but the Quest 2 resolution was already pretty solid. It’s still a great movie watching experience. I’m sure it’s even better with the Pro, but not $1500-for-a-niche-device better
What's really interesting to me is that this headset seems to echo Apple's (purported) interests in a "premium" hardware generation targeted at enthusiasts and developers. The Quest is ultimately a leftover from the Oculus acquisition, so it should be really interesting to see how this hardware evolves under Meta's leadership.
Edit: I did some digging, and the situation is actually pretty complicated. Facebook bought Oculus in 2014, but they continued operating as an "autonomous subsidiary" for a few years before being absorbed into Meta and rebranded as Reality Labs. I guess it really depends on your frame of thought, but I seem to be wrong here.
Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).
> The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire.
The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head.
TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
[0] - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-rais...
Slight nitpick/question:
if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
Could you expand on this?
Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work.
1. Through the lens: https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199
The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes.
1. https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/
2. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_po...
I reckon the Pro has a healthy margin and will targets companies. They will use Accenture and peddle the Microsoft suite VR to sell tens of thousands of these to companies for remote work, and most of them will barely be used .
Meta can stem the losses of the VR division, and a Quest 3 will come in a while.
Even Facebook / Microsoft don't give out VR headsets to all employees.
This is also a first gen product, so this is not the version most companies may be adopting.
Enterprise companies are too cheap to justify $1500 per head for a gimmick, though.
I expect you're wrong - spatial audio, body language, face tracking, eye contact are all super valuable and possibly in VR
Will headsets replace zoom? I can't say. There are other convenience factors there. But hanging out in a virtual place is empirically compelling.
In my experience whether they find this compelling depends a lot on the respective person. "Manager types" might like it, but quite some programmers would rather detest it.
Desktop computing with a VR headset is somewhat possible right now, but I am not quite able to stomach the resolution limitations of the Quest 2. I'm looking forward to devices like SimulaVR [0], which intend to fully replace desktop computing with a self-contained VR headset (plus a mouse and keyboard).
In my mind, there are two and a half problems to solve to make it possible. One is pixel density. It has to at least be equivalent (or very close) to our own eyes. Two is comfort, both physical (ventilation, weight) and health-wise (eye strain). Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
[0] https://simulavr.com/
> Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
I can't imagine that. I think it'll end up being a normal desk, mouse, keyboard painted into the VR world by using the passthrough cameras.
Something else I've noticed when I put on my Quest 2 is the lighting. I don't like the way the lights in my office feel like they glare in my eyes. Putting on the Quest 2 and hitting a virtual environment gives the feel of indirect lighting and I find it much more comfortable. It's like being outside.
That comfort doesn't last very long, but if I could get away with it for 2h at a time, and have high DPI virtual screens, I think I'd at least try a virtual office.
They also need to make it so I can drink a cup of coffee with the headset on or the whole thing is DOA. Lol.
I don't understand this. I code and read in VR almost every day. With proper aliasing, it's extremely acceptable as is. Font characters per degree has to be increased, of course, but Quest 2 is about the same as a 720p virtual monitor.
Have you tried reading in VR?
For now, I can't handle more than ~30 mins with any VR/MR/AR device, but if I can actually wear one for several hours and be productive using one - I will be convinced we've turned the corner on this tech.
Low resolutions aside, headsets are still way too heavy and bulky, at least in my experience. Some even get quite hot. I can imagine that the weight and heat could be solved over time, but the bulkiness seems like a very big hurdle. When using lenses you need the distance, so it's hard to see how we can miniaturize headsets without a brand new technological innovation.
The nreal air is 79g [1]. It has a 1080p resolution (45 degree, so reasonably PPD), but I imagine this will multiply over the years.
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
seriously ... i reckon its half the reason the Quest Pro is shipping without a lower face block by default.
The pixel density is there (and better than quest pro), and we just need to finish the comfort features -- passthrough, mechanical comfort, integrated host.
Alternatively, think of how small you can make the cubicles if you can integrate the entire computer and telephone into a headset.
You could like double or triple capacity if cubicles were the size of those WeWork phone booths.
Sim Racing, any game where you fly or run around - those are artificial locomotion and can definitely take some getting used to for some (not all) people.
Expectation: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/a2/65/d1a265d2093c0b952112...
Reality: https://assets1.ignimgs.com/2016/10/06/maxresdefaultjpg-f9a9...
Come to think of it, they're both pretty dorky.
* Disclaimer: I'm an investor in Immersed.
Now that the quest pro is available, I've already pre-ordered it for this use case. I'd love every project I work on to have different "screens" in different environments to put my mind into each project.
I used Immersed at length for two months and I had to stop from the frequency of eye fatigue and tiredness at shorter intervals than I currently experience with regular monitor work.
Until that happens I don’t see companies sending this out, not to mention things like motion sickness some people get even with low motion VR like immersed.
I do plan to give them another try though with this Quest Pro as I'd rather not have all my productivity software tied to Meta.
I’m not saying VR/AR is going to turn out the same way, but it seems at least possible that new affordances will create new kinds of applications again.
I wonder how long this paradigm will continue for (probably until Apple leads a change away)
I know it's fun to hate on Meta, but this honestly looks like it resolves most of the gripes I had with the Quest 2, aside from the whole Facebook integration piece... It looks like a solid piece of hardware.
If they tell the regular users (who spend $50 per game) that they can’t purchase new games without a new headset, I bet most would ditch the technology.
Could you name the other more advanced standalone options? I'm only aware of Pico, which is near parity, but tied to the CCP.
It appears neither of those have face tracking, and the Pimax doesn't have eye tracking. Besides that, both of those are PCVR (not standalone) and the Aero doesn't even come with controllers despite costing nearly $2000.
Meanings it’s all Facebook on the backend.
Your account just doesn’t say Facebook erm Meta on it. You are still subject to all the bad things they do with automated bans, shifting TOS, social bla, etc.
They did make good on this. You can make Meta accounts with arbitrary emails and there's no connection to Facebook or real name stuff.
I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can *not* be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again and install software updates in broken UIs with no progress indication etc.
The only thing I use it for anymore is if somebody's over and wants to try VR, I let them to the tutorial demo and maybe play some Superhot (which hasn't broken for lack of updates ... yet!). Unfortunately streaming that to the TV via Chromecast from the app doesn't work anymore for Zuck knows what reason.
Consumer tech is so hostile and frustrating, I really just can not deal with it anymore. Sorry for the rant.
Your knowledge and experience does not reflect current reality. Multiple logins haven't been required since the launch of the Quest 2. I didn't have a Quest 1, so I can't comment there.
> You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps
This is false. Only one account is needed. Sometimes individual apps will require a login, but that's exceedingly rare, or allows you to login with other devices, to the app, outside of the Quest ecosystem. This is not a fault of Meta, it's just the reality of third party credentials. I don't recall the last app I had to
If you buy a headset now, you would make a Meta account that would be used for everything. That's it.
If you had a Facebook account and are ok with continuing with the Facebook account, you're done.
If you had a Facebook account and you want to convert it to a Meta account, you can choose to do this, then you're done.
All three situations above use a single account for all apps, besides those that are meant to be accessible cross platform.
By the way, this kind of thing is in no way particular to Facebook - our entire industry has this much disrespect for its users.
In this particular case, with this particular product and company, the churn has happened, and we should see some stability now.
If you want complete stability, you're in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong website. But there's no reason to be irrational about it.
"It's all very simple if you're an industry expert following $company's every move!"
There is no way to use all features of a Quest without logging in _at least_ twice (once on a phone, once on the device itself, because some features are inexplicably only accessible through the app). If you've had it for a while, you've also had to deal with (potentially non-exhaustive list):
- an Oculus account (comes (came?) in linked/unlinked flavours)
- a Facebook account
- a Meta account (is that the same as the above? who knows!)
- a Horizon account (what even is Horizon?)
From the perspective of somebody who just bought the damn thing to use it, as far as I can tell none of these were avoidable if you followed the default flows. There's probably more now. That's ignoring steps on the phone, and linking steps between devices through URLs needing to be opened on a computer and all of that faff.
I'm sure there's a secret code phrase I could've garnered from some Reddit with 10k users that, if I had said it to Support, would have let me skip one of these steps - but who does that?
Yeah I am sure there is a way to turn off all that junk and opt out of installing the app or giving them your phone number but its full of anti-patterns to make you do it. What a hassle.
Kind of infuriating. But not as much as remembering to go and update my drivers... :\",
There is only one account type now.
Can you also use the Meta headsets without creating any account?
I do have to say that Quest Link over WiFi works amazingly well and lets you break out of the walled garden to get to the more interesting corners of VR. It also lets you run stuff that would be way too heavy for the mobile-phone level processor on the Quest. Only downside is the WiFi eats a lot of battery power, so one of those headbands with an extra battery is almost required, but since they improve the weight distribution of the headset it's not a terrible buy.
They're a bad actor, having demonstrated this beyond a shadow of doubt.
A sensible person would need a strong signal to believe they've switched to cooperating, and no such signal is evident.
It requires an account owned by Facebook. I don't do that company the courtesy of using their pretentious, bullshit, fake rebranding, out of disrespect.
Facebook has shadow profiles for people who don’t use the service.
I personally don't want any unnecessary weight on my face since I sometimes use my headsets for 8 hours at a time, for coding. For comparison, something like the nreal air [1] is only 79g!
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
Out of curiosity, how does that work? What's the flow, what software do you use, do you still use a keyboard to type?
For desktop streaming, you can use your desktop keyboard/mouse, or a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. For native apps, you use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. The headset sees/tracks the (supported) keyboard with the passthrough cameras and shows a passthrough window/overlay, where it is.
I have no doubt that virtual displays are the future, but probably not until form factors are like the nreal air [3], which I think is still too limited for resolution. Next gen, I'll probably switch over. People will probably be happy enough once PPD triples.
1. https://www.immersed.com/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/de7ojk/using_v...
3. https://www.nreal.ai/air/
Quest Pro has battery on the back so it looks very well balanced. Let's see how long the battery lasts.
This means that for every 3 pixels on the quest 2 you now have 4. Not exactly a huge increase IMO. What's needed to reach the equivalent of a 24" 1080p monitor at say 2-3 feet away, still needs like a 2-4x increase in pixel per degree.
The other thing is, I suspect the Quest 2 price point was heavily subsidised, so maybe we're just seeing the real cost of a VR headset when it's advertised to what's perceived as a less price sensitive audience (i.e. businesses).
I still find it weird they haven't shown any mention of incorporating the Bobo VR solution to battery life problems, where there's a secondary battery pack on a magnetic mount and you can swap it out without taking the headset off.
> I was told the headset would last between one and two hours on a single charge, then take around two hours to recharge
That's...not great for a device targeted at enterprise? Especially without any sort of fast recharge or swappable battery pack.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is the biggest red flag.
They also do not list how long the controllers last, not found any source mentioning that yet, which is a huge red flag.
Unless they release a proprietary charging cable that is.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is a red flag to me.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/accessories/controllers/elite-wir...
Once I switched from Safari on iOS to Chrome on MacOS it worked.
1440x1600 per-eye is valve index, and 1832x1920 per-eye for the Quest 2
No idea where the 4x comes from, but I'm guessing that the mixed reality cameras are just better and it's a semi-misleading statement.
> Its screens offer a respectable 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye with a maximum 90Hz refresh rate, plus new display tech that Meta says offers 75 percent more contrast than the Quest 2’s.
Yeah... Not much of a spec sheet. I don't think there is a registration for a "world class" specification anywhere.
The tech spec sheet should be for actual specs, not sales drivel.
It's strange that the display resolution is not mentioned anywhere on meta's site though. Overall this spec sheet is pretty useless.
During the presentation they mentioned "37% more pixels" than quest 2, and more density in the center due to the new lenses. I assume the 2160x2160 ventured on some sites is pretty much correct and the Quest 2-like 1830x1920 is not. Would be great to get actual confirmation though.
I feel what you're saying though. I loved the first Quest and was heavy into VR for a bit but after an hour of the Quest 2 it ended up in the drawer. It's useless for horror games or movies because black simply does not exist - it's generous to call it grey.
The price, while steep, is not outrageous compared to something like an iPhone. But I still haven't seen a "killer app" for VR so it's not a "daily driver" like a phone would be. The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
Agreed. Whether you agree with how Meta does things or not (I don't), they have made it very clear that they see the Quest as a locked down, Meta-controlled ecosystem.
I happen to use an iPhone, which arguably pioneered this sort of thing, but I feel like Meta are taking it to the next level. They have much higher rev-shares, (I think it's 40-60%), they have tighter control, require a Facebook account to use it (quite different to an Apple account to access cloud features), and while an iPhone is quite functional without the AppStore and iCloud with the web and built-in functionality, I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup.
All that lock-in worries me.
> They have much higher rev-shares
The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much* lower than Apple.
> they have tighter control
Than the iPhone? The Quest can be used in SteamVR like any other headset. Third-party apps can be sideloaded, and the bootloader is (semi) unlocked. Not sure how they're even comparable.
> require a Facebook account to use it
A Meta account now, disconnected from the social network. How is this different than an Apple account?
> I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup
Do you have a Quest? I've used mine entirely as a PCVR setup, I don't think I've used a FB service in years besides the store.
* EDIT: Discussed below, "much" is maybe a bit too far. Seems like the final split is roughly the same, though AppLab doesn't take a cut of IAP.
How is that much lower than Apple? If you do under a million a year on the App Store or in the second year of an iOS subscription it's 85/15, else it's 70/30 (unless you have a better backroom deal).
I say much because (afaik) the majority of developer income comes from recurring payments, which AppLab doesn't take any of.
From what I know, Apple takes 30% of paid app sales in the app store. In-app purchases, though, drop to a 15% take after the first year (or that's my read from the article).
Contrast this with AppLab, which takes 30% of paid app sales, but doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases.
I'll retract the "much" lower point since I assume this results in roughly the same final take. Games on non-mobile have a higher initial cost, which probably balances the lack of post-sale revenue.
Regardless, I don't think this makes the Oculus more locked down than an iPhone, since you can always bypass their store and sideload or run apps directly from your PC, which Apple isn't offering.
People tend to conflate FAANGs with each other. One bad Apple ruins the bunch.
only if you value your time at $0. the amount of time to keep sidequest working and fight official updates breaking it is not trivial.
You just need the bog standard android adb shell program.
>adb install-multiple one.apk two.apk three.apk
Done.
Would love to try a pair programming session with it.
edit: info here — https://www.meta.com/en-gb/help/quest/articles/headsets-and-...
this entire VR push reminds me of the days when IE and Netscape were competing with "push" browsers, which were equally pointless.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/netscape-releases-beta-of-push...
Think it's clear who Meta wants to buy this! It will be great if companies buy their employees a $1500 headset that they use to play Beat Saber.
I want to get off this ride.
Cubicles (even the virtual ones) are not conductive to facilitating collaboration and inducing spontaneous exchange of ideas in an enterprise setting. We will all be taking 10 hours of calls in noisy virtual openspace!
Separately, I still have a hard time with my friends Quest controllers compared to the Valve knuckles. Something about how the Valve controls grip your hands, instead of you actively gripping them, it's just so much more natural. I'm really surprised these new controllers don't have the same style of straps built-in.
Straps are detachable, comes in-box.
https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/tech-specs/#tech-specs
Images & videos on other parts of the website show bare or covered ears.
Unless I'm missing something, charging that much for a proprietary cable just sounds like an attempt to lock in to their ecosystem and app store, and prevent this being used as a dumb VR interface to another system.
I can understand it on the budget consumer device, but here it's a little cheap.
* https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...
Uh, does anyone else just see a blank white page? (Firefox, uBlock Origin, Javascript enabled)