Cannot believe after all these years, STILL nothing out to replace my Index.
People are losing their minds on Facebook groups and/or the internet. So many people complaining about the price and it being crap, while ignoring the months of stuff put out by Meta that this is for professionals/developers. Then you have the other crowd making up conspiracies that these were marketed towards pro/developers because Meta knew it was going to be a flop and just wanted to try to break even by peddling to consumers with cash.This was never going to be a consumer headset. A Quest 3 this is not.
It's definitely better, but I suspect many people don't grasp that improvements can involve more than processing power, resolution and battery life.I think it's the frustration that VR tech is moving so incredible slow. I mean the best mainstream PC consumer VR headset (Index) is low resolution and what 3-4 years old? Then Meta releases a VR headset at $1,500 with basically the same specs as a 2+ year old $299 headset. I can see the discontent.
Mind you, Meta also doesn't seem to understand that releasing a pro-oriented headset is frustrating when the Quest 2 is aging, it's the holiday season and there are no signs of a Quest 3 coming any time soon. Imagine if Apple's only new iPhone this fall was a 1TB 14 Pro Max... a great device, but there would be riots. Good companies feed the beast by keeping a consistent flow of mainstream offerings, even if they're relatively modest.
Ya and the Quest Pro has stuff like face movement tracking that very very little people care about.
I wouldn't expect Meta to put out a new mainstream Quest headset every year, or even two. Rather, the issue is that Meta unintentionally sent a message of indifference: we know you've been waiting for a Quest 3, but here's a $1,500 headset that isn't even aimed at you. I'm sure one is in the works, and I understand that VR hardware evolves slowly. But it might've helped if Meta had teased the Q3 or otherwise managed expectations, much in the same way as Apple hinted at a new Mac Pro in March.The Quest 2 has sold, in it's two-year life-to-date, what iPhones sell in one month. Also, iDevices aren't sold at a loss. Expecting annual product upgrades out of a division that has never turned a profit -- as far as I'm aware -- is kind of a reach.
There's a long way to go before VR hits proper sustainability, and rapid iteration of failing products is not the way to get there.
QPro is the teaser for the Q3. "Here's all the stuff we hope to cram in the next consumer headset... a thousand bucks cheaper and a year or so later."I wouldn't expect Meta to put out a new mainstream Quest headset every year, or even two. Rather, the issue is that Meta unintentionally sent a message of indifference: we know you've been waiting for a Quest 3, but here's a $1,500 headset that isn't even aimed at you. I'm sure one is in the works, and I understand that VR hardware evolves slowly. But it might've helped if Meta had teased the Q3 or otherwise managed expectations, much in the same way as Apple hinted at a new Mac Pro in March.
I really do hope Quest 3 widens the FOV, even a little. I don't need 160 or 180...even 125 to 135 would be nice.
This is why I finally just went Pimax 8KX, as it's taking the more mainstream headset manufacturers far too long to widen FOV, and who knows if they'll ever do it.I agree. PPI has been fine for a while now, even Quest 2 is satisfactory. Scuba diver FOV has to go next. Humans are not birds, we use our eye movement more than our necks to get a feel of our surroundings.
This is why I finally just went Pimax 8KX, as it's taking the more mainstream headset manufacturers far too long to widen FOV, and who knows if they'll ever do it.
If it's half as good as they claim it will be I'll buy one for sure. But I'm not waiting around holding my breath for it which is why I bought a Quest pro.I am actually looking forward to the next gen Pimax headsets that are coming. Still too expensive for my blood initially but the lower end versions are bound to happen eventually.
Well, the solution would be don't buy a $1500 HMD to begin with if privacy is a concern, since part of the pricepoint is the bleeding edge feature you'd be trying to circumvent.Pfft. Just cover the eye tracking sensor or wear some special contact lenses or eyewear that fools it.
If life has taught me anything there's almost always a low tech solution to a high tech problem.
Looking forward to your review.
Ah yeah I guess they're actually almost the exact same resolution and it's all in the optics. Looks like they're claiming 25% clearer in the center and 50% on the outside.Technically it has lower resolution than the Quest 2, but ya the optical stack seems like it's far better.