Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Technology

Meta Announces Its Quest 3 VR Headset, Which Will Cost $500 (theverge.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the frontrunning-Apple dept.
Meta has officially announced its Quest 3 VR headset in a post on Mark Zuckerberg's Instagram. The $499.99 headset is "coming this fall," and the post confirms that its design is 40 percent lighter than the Quest 2, with a new next-generation Snapdragon chip inside. From a report: This is coming just days before Apple is expected to announce its long-rumored mixed reality headset and hours ahead of a showcase for games on Meta's VR platform that begins later today at 1PM ET. We already had a pretty good idea of how the Quest 3 would shake out after Mark Gurman of Bloomberg detailed his hands-on experience with the then-unannounced device earlier this week, reporting on the lighter and more comfortable design that adds new sensors and redesigned controllers. The announced video clearly shows off the three new sensor areas across the front of the device. Gurman described that the pill-shaped zones hold four cameras split evenly between the left and right sides -- two of which are full-color cameras and two standard -- and a single depth sensor in the middle that could improve the headset's AR performance.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Announces Its Quest 3 VR Headset, Which Will Cost $500 More

Meta Announces Its Quest 3 VR Headset, Which Will Cost $500

Comments Filter:

  • Meta tracks data, no thanks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by S_Stout ( 2725099 ) on Thursday June 01, 2023 @10:25AM (#63567281)
    Ever since they demanded a Facebook account for their VR, there is nothing they can say or do to bring me back. Sorry Meta, find someone else to datamine!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      You know they ditched that requirement right?

      • Re:Meta tracks data, no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday June 01, 2023 @10:37AM (#63567309)

        ...for now.

        But they sure would never do a bait and switch, honest. Promised. No really.

      • You can't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

      • You know they ditched that requirement right?

        Indeed but (and this is a Kardashian sized butt), they didn't have the requirement in the first place, then they bait and switched people forcing them to merge their account with Facebook, and then they separated their account but at no point did they say they won't be doing exactly the same amount of tracking they are always known for.

        You still need an account. The fact you login to a different page and can use a different username doesn't make this any less Facebook datahoovering.

        That said I'll probably b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          And lets be honest, the sad reality is that EVERYONE is hoovering data these days. If you went with the competition you'd just be picking someone else to steal your data.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Nite_Hawk ( 1304 )

            No idea if it's any good as I've never seen one in person, but...

            https://www.lynx-r.com/ [lynx-r.com]

          • Hoovering data is hardly the issue. The issue is how the data is hoovered. Oculus accounts were just random accounts tied to emails. Facebook on the other hand has real name policies. Oculus accounts are accounts tied to hardware purchases. Facebook accounts were accounts that get banned for the dumbest of reasons and where Facebook as a policy requires government issued ID for unbanning. And the dumbest thing of all: Facebook had a policy of considering Facebook accounts with no posts and no friends to be

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shaitan ( 22585 )

              But again, they stopped requiring that and reinstated accounts that weren't linked to your FB account.

              • It doesn't matter what they stopped. What matters is that they have a proven track record showing that whatever is happening now is not an indicator of what the requirement is throughout your ownership period.

                To be clear Facebook didn't have the policy in the first place. They introduced it. Not for new products, but for existing products forcing the upgrade or making your device a paperweight. The fact that they backtracked TWO YEARS LATER, is irrelevant.

                If I came up and punched you, and you complained to

                • Re: (Score:3)

                  by Shaitan ( 22585 )

                  "The fact that they backtracked TWO YEARS LATER, is irrelevant."

                  Not to people buying a headset today it isn't. To people buying today it very much matters that the headset they are purchasing doesn't come with an automatic punch in the face.

    • They can't make any money if they don't track your data...

      • They can if they do it right

        • They can if they do it right

          So which is the more attractive option for consumers:

          (A) Buy the cheaper headset from Meta with privacy concerns
          (B) Buy the more expensive headset from Apple with fewer privacy concerns
          (C) Don't buy a headset

          Obvious option C will win out by far, but which of the the other two options will win out? $500 doesn't seem that cheap to me, but $3000 seems like a non-starter, even for folks willing to pay $1000 for a phone.

          Meta has gotten 20 million people to buy a headset, but many/most of those people aren't act

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            There's an option D: buy a headset from one of the many other manufacturers.

            Meta seems to be about 48% of the VR headset market, which suggests their strategy of give-us-all-your-data-for-a-50%-discount works well, but not overwhelmingly.

            • All I hear about is Quest (nee` Oculus) and Valve, which indicates marketing efforts, so I decided to take a look at the others.

              Back when I was getting ready to get an Oculus, FB bought them out and I said no. $1k+ was too much for an occasional game. From the list below I see that HP(!) has an offering which might serve.

              Simple, Tethered, and Windows-Friendly: HP Reverb G2
              HP Reverb G2
              Best for Simple, Tethered VR
              $599.00

              From PCmag:

              Best Overall VR Headset: Oculus Quest 2/Meta Quest 2
              Meta Quest 2
              Best for Standa

          • 500$ for a gimmick to play video games is a non starter for most people. Meta is screwed. The metaverse is a wasteland inhabited by teenagers an zuckerburg and they can't buy out any more social media companies.

          • Once FB bought out Oculus it was a non-starter for me. I also didn't care that only certain VR games are provided for on the platform.

            Looking at other units it seems that HP has one in the sweet spot, but I have yet to read any reviews on it. I expect that there will be something disappointing about it.

            Simple, Tethered, and Windows-Friendly: HP Reverb G2
            HP Reverb G2
            Best for Simple, Tethered VR
            $599.00

        • Um, you don't know metas business model very well. Data is worth a lot of money to companies

    • Ever since they demanded a Facebook account for their VR,

      Open mouth. Insert foot.

      • >Open mouth. Insert foot.

        Yes, you just did. How embarrassing.

        They did have that requirement. And yes, they rescinded it. If you trust them not to bring it back or to find any and every other way to get what they want while avoiding customer outrage... you're a fool.

        OP's post was factually correct and there's nothing wrong with the opinion they have as a result of those facts.

    • A bunch of comments berating this comment for not knowing that they had rescinded the Facebook account requirement seem to be under the impression that is the commenters responsibility to repeatedly check in to see if the requirement has been subtly dropped after being alienated. If Meta wants to get those potential customers back, they need to make the effort to make it known, loudly. But they don't want to be obvious about it because that would let more people know it is optional. Meta instead relies o

      • That's not the issue. The issue is they bait and switched before. They forced existing users of devices to sign up or add a Facebook account despite already having separate accounts. The fact that they are separate now is meaningless given their past actions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        The original comment seems perfectly reasonable to me.

        Why don't you go back to your abusive partner? They haven't hit you recently!

    • I don't understand why everyone was so up in arms about the fb account requirement.

      I made a fake account for my kid during setup and forgot about it. It's dead. No posts. No messaging. No nothing. She has other accounts she actually uses.

      Everyone is used to making fake email accounts, why a big deal to make fake fb accounts?

  • Right. (Score:3)

    by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Thursday June 01, 2023 @10:32AM (#63567295) Journal

    The post noted that it’ll be the first announced headset with “high-res color mixed reality.”

    It's always very telling what the "established" players think when Apple gets close to a rumored announcement of a new product line. "We have to be first even though we're 6 months away from our actual product launch, because spoiled 13 year olds with parents that buy them any kind of gimmicky crap give a shit about which product was announced first, versus actually being a product and not vaporware!"

    We saw this same shit right before the Apple Watch was announced. Either terrible products being shoved out as fast as possible because the companies responsible knew that the entire market was going to freeze as soon as Apple announced pricing and availability, or "we were first!!1!!one!1" announcements of products that don't exist yet in the hope of freezing the market themselves.

    Here's an idea: instead of playing stupid pre-announcement "product tease" games, just make better products for cheaper prices that actually work and serve a purpose. The rest takes care of itself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      I agree with the general spirit of not releasing vaporware here but I'm not sure it is well placed here.

      With all the shakeup at META and talk of the Quest 2 not going anywhere many of us were looking for more solid confirmation the Quest 3 was still on track for this year.

      As for making better products for cheaper prices, this confirms the Quest 3 is [at least on paper and in the first review] a better product and while not cheaper still in the same ballpark as before. The quest 2 updates coming down the pip

    • Meta is lying about high res. (a weasel word) 2k per eye is not high res.

      • Yes it is. Stop the BS. 4K isn't even practical yet as no mainstream GPU can drive a dual display at 90+fps. So at this time it just doesn't make any sense for a mainstream headset.

        • Why do we need 4k/90fps for video games?

          Back in the day we needed 1k/60fps and back before that we needed 720p/30fps and before that 640x480x64 colors was astounding and it felt like fucking Star Trek when we got 8!!! colors! That's 8 colors at the _same time_!

          There comes a point where most people can't tell the difference anymore. It's well below 90 fps.

          • There comes a point where most people can't tell the difference anymore. It's well below 90 fps.

            You obviously know nothing about VR.

            • Gosh thanks, that was super educational and not at all ad hominem.

              Let's see how that works in reverse.

              You're the one who doesn't know anything about VR! Nyah!

              See? I even added the NYAH so I'm right and you're wrong.

              If you have something intelligent and contributory to add then please do so, otherwise do yourself a favor and stfu.

              • Well, I've learned about VR from using it. I can tell you that 720p @ 30Hz is worse than riding a vomit comet.

          • We're talking about VR, and less then 90fps in VR is motionsickness inducing for many people. Ofcourse we need to move forward, but in case of VR not at the expense of comfort or much higher price. We'll get 4K/90fps/eye maybe with the next incarnation in about 2-3 years.

            • First Google hit from "minimum VR fps":

              https://vr.linde.com/2022/10/0... [linde.com].

              60 fps to avoid motion sickness.

              • It's really not that simple... It's very situational dependent.

                Is it 6DOF or 3DOF. Are you sitting, standing, or physically walking around in space. How much physical movement you make and how much the world/objects move around you play a massive role. Regardless of the frame rate some people can't handle artifical locomotion at all.

                Also, the specifics of the hardware matter. An OLED display can feel very different than an LCD display even at the same frame rate. One can be comfortable and the other can res

          • VR is more complicated because wearing the headset can get physically ill and a low frame rate can radically increase the chances of that happening. Unfortunately there are so many factors that contribute so we can't just say anything above X is safe for most of the population but early headsets decided on 90hz being that min bar. You can go lower and I personally am fine at 72hz (for most types of content) but when I go as low 60hz I have problems. It's physically uncomfortable for almost everything and ce

        • You realize your eyes can only see a few degrees field of view at a time in high res, right? If you don't believe me try reading this sentence without moving your eyeball. In a VR headset that tracks your eyeball, the GPU only needs to render a small area of the screen in high resolution. Less than HD would be sufficient. With foveated rendering that can track an eyeball at 240 fps .. even hi-res rendering a 600 x 600 pixel box would be overkill. It doesn't require a high end GPU.

          • But it still needs to render extra in your complete fov. But people want a higher resolution with the same current FOV. Using a higher resolution to fill a wider display to fill your complete fov (like 180%) is another matter. But as I said, when people talk about higher resolution, they mean with the current FOV. I'd rather have a much larger FOV, so you don't have the ski-/divinggoggles view, is much more important then having a higher resolution within the same fov degrees as current headsets.

        • 4K isn't even practical yet as no mainstream GPU can drive a dual display at 90+fps

          OK, and yet one week later, Apple has done exactly that with their VR offering. Funny how quickly your assertion was disproved.

          • No they haven't. Let's be clear, when speaking about 'GPU can't drive dual display at 90+fps', it generally is meant as an AAA game running, not some fancy pancy 2D stuff shown in 3D.
            Even an old GPU from the 90's would be able to drive a dualscreen 4K 90+fps, if all it does is show one color.
            At this time the RTX4090 which is said to be the most powerful consumer GPU can barely handle games like GTA5, Cybepunk at 4k ultra with 100+ fps, and that's WITH using things like DLSS3.. So you tell me Apple can mirac

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoRK ( 10018 )

      I'm highly confident the Quest 3 and Apple MR Headset markets will not overlap that much.

      I'm highly doubtful that the Apple headset will be anything other than a patent-staking product that will likely harm the vr/ar industry when it fails to gain traction because of Apple's closed minded approach to every. single. thing.

      • I'm highly doubtful that the Apple headset will be anything other than a patent-staking product...when it fails to gain traction....

        So what you are sAyinG is:

        "There's no chance that the xrOS is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

    • It's always very telling what the "established" players think when Apple gets close to a rumored announcement of a new product line. "We have to be first even though we're 6 months away from our actual product launch, because spoiled 13 year olds with parents that buy them any kind of gimmicky crap give a shit about which product was announced first, versus actually being a product and not vaporware!"

      LOL. You think colour AR tracking is a me too moment by a company copying another whose product hasn't even entered the market yet? A company that invented the concept of visual passthrough, and have been injecting R&D into it for the best part of a decade already (hand tracking, point clouds in passthrough, successively better and higher quality visuals in passthrough over the past 4 products), and now because they have colour you think they are copying someone else?

      I'm not fan of Meta (though am a fan

      • When did I say anyone was copying anyone?

        Do you really think that if Apple's launch event wasn't next week, Meta would be throwing this hasty "announcement" out so far in advance of actually shipping?

        I personally don't give a fuck what Apple launches next week, so take your biased bullshit and cram it right up your ass where it came from. I was merely commenting on the same sequence of "competitive" announcements that always come right before an Apple product announcement, which are usually vaporware bulls

    • That sounds all well and good, but it takes a lot of R&D and a lot of risk. Most VPs don't want that risk and would gladly just copy someone else and add their own little customization to an otherwise generic product to cash in on past brand loyalty. Apple's success has unfortunately created a large wake of these chum-feeders just fighting over the scraps in the lower-priced sections of the market that Apple doesn't bother to acknowledge. Every company now sells a "smart watch" for $40 that barely works

    • The Quest 2 already works perfectly, so the Quest 3 will work even better, for a fraction of the rumored Apple price.

      • You must have a very different working definition of "perfectly" than literally anyone else.

        There are many things about the Quest 2 that aren't even optimal, much less perfect.

        • Oh please get you head out of your ass, as many people think the Quest 2 is already a good product. Could it be better? Yes ofcourse, but so will the Apple headset when it is released. But you have to keep cost into perspective, you cannot create a headset like what apple does for $500, hell for $10.000 they can easily create the best headset for this moment which would far exceed the headset by Apple.

      • I found the q2 boring and pointless. The "new, cool" effect wore out after 20 minutes. My kid got bored of it after 2-3 weeks.

        I don't have any technical or UI/UX or whatever complaints about it. It did what I expected. But it was uninteresting and had zero fun value.

        What are you using it for?

        • I use the VR headset for gaming and fitness. I love gaming through the headset, it makes a lot of games much more interesting/immersive. A lot of games are just boring playing at a flatscreen.

          • Ok fair enough. What games are you playing? I have not done extensive for game research but have put a few minutes into poking around and didn't see anything standout.

            • I like adventure games (like Alyx, obduction), also escaperoom type of games (which I normally don't like when playing on a flatscreen). And there are many more, like puzzle related games. But sure there are also a lot of crap games just like for flatscreen.

  • I like the thought of this headset being aimed more toward AR than previous headsets.

    It really seems like Apple, even before launch, is giving clarity to the market as to the importance of AR over VR....

    And the announced time is just far enough out that Facebook can spend time on trying to meet some capabilities of the Apple headset when details are finally released (though it would have to be software only, hardware is probably pretty firm at this point)

    • How exactly are they bringing clarity? They haven't shown the software or a critical use of anything. They just said they considered AR the important part.

      • How exactly are they bringing clarity?...They just said they considered AR the important part.

        You just answered your own question, because until now pretty much everyone was VR oriented.

    • Yep. The passthrough feature was long overdue.

      That's a boon for board/tabletop games, where everyone sees the same things laying in the table.

      But not only that. It allows physical collaboration for people actually in a same conference room, sharing located virtual media.
    • Oh no, not another apple fanboy's "apple shows the way" comment. Meta has been working on MR/AR with their headset for quite some time, even others like Pico also have been busy with it. Well before Apple said something.

      • Meta has been working on MR/AR with their headset for quite some time,

        Yes with VR, not really with AR.

        Owning most of the Oculus units from the earliest days (including the first few dev kits), I can assure you that Meta has been doing very little with AR until recently.

        Even the Quest Pro supports AR, but mostly to be used as an enhancement for things in the virtual world.

        Apple's headset will be oriented primarily to AR use, that also happens to support VR. I just wish people understood what a vast differe

  • Just enough time for Meta to copy the features of Apple’s AR headset that they like. Who needs R&D when you can just copy what Apple does?

    • Who needs R&D when you can just copy what Apple does?

      Sorry what? Meta has invested far more R&D in VR than Apple (OMG we better get in on this too) has. Which stands to reason given they have had a 10 year head start.

      I take it you've never used a Quest 2, or Quest, or Rift, all of which have VR passthrough and AR features that have been developed and improved successively over the past half a decade.

      But I guess Apple is entering the market now so we must masturbate all over their product like the braindead fanbois we are. Yeah everyone is copying Apple!!!

    • Funny, if there is a company that copies a lot from others, it's Apple. They just put a shine on it.
  • The announced video clearly shows off the three new sensor areas across the front of the device.
    • I'd prefer an unobstructed natural view of the word with AR overlaid rather than view a monitor showing the outside as captured by a camera.

      • Everybody would but unfortunately nobody has figured out how to make a device that can do it in a small enough form factor with a desirable enough image quality/field of view.

        Passthru AR at least produces a good enough experience where we can start trying to solving the major UI/UX challenges now and starting to get a basic understanding of the medium.

  • Never will I ever purchase something that Zuck has his grubby hands into. Even if this freak weren't involved VR is about as appealing as 3D TV.

  • I will probably buy a Quest 3 (or a Vive, let's wait for actual reviews), but there's a big problem with VR right now. Lack of compelling games. Half-Life Alyx is good, saved largely by a community creating mods and content. I love flying around in flightsimulator (and the higher resolution display would be a real benefit since you can not read the instrument cluster on a Rift S).

    But ... WHERE ARE THE GAMES! For a while there were great interesting and compelling games coming out constantly, but if you look

    • There was a flurry of games initially because the newness got people interested. But now people don't want to spend that much money on a gaming toy (It's the economy, etc.) and the newness of the idea has worn off. It's not strictly a new idea, but this is the first time in computing history that even kind of acceptable hardware has been even kind of affordable.

      The companies making these headsets need to be showering game developers with free hardware, and development support. VR headsets have zero practica

  • VR is dead, we were told. Lots of astroturfing, lots of "this isn't useful for anything", "solution in search of a problem", "meta is abandoning VR". Now $500 headset coming soon?

    • VR is dead.
      It isn't useful for consumers.
      It has no reason to exist.
      I never saw anyone say FB is abandoning it. Who said that?
      Now a $500 headset coming soon. Still won't have a reason to exist.

      But the big question is will my avatar have legs?

  • Two word rule at play. (Score:3)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Thursday June 01, 2023 @01:54PM (#63568131)

    "Meta? No."

    Don't really care how good the device is. My rule is inviolate.

  • I see more resolution, more compact, and a bunch of adjectives, but no resolution, refresh rates or field of view information Where are the specs?

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close