Meta has officially discontinued Quest Pro, the company’s first mixed reality headset.

Meta announced back in September that it was winding down Quest 2 and Quest Pro sales. At the time, the company said remaining stock would be sold through the end of the year or until they ran out, whichever came first.

Now, in place of the Quest Pro order page, Meta is suggesting users to buy Quest 3 “for the ultimate mixed reality experience and premium comfort.” You can still buy Quest Pro’s ‘Touch Pro’ controllers however, as they support Quest 2 and above.

Released in 2022 at the eye-water price of $1,500, Meta hoped to use the headset to kickstart its mixed reality ambitions among consumers, as it was the first to offer color-passthrough, pancake lenses, and both face and eye-tracking—coming in strong contrast to the company’s other offering at the time, Quest 2.

Quest 2 (left) & Quest Pro (right) | Photo by Road to VR

Nearly a year after launch, it was apparent the Pro-level headset wasn’t appealing to users nearly to the degree Meta had initially hoped, prompting the company to knock Quest Pro down to $1,000. To complicate matters, high initial pricing of Quest Pro put a strain on developers, which resulted in very few compelling MR experiences out of the gate.

It was clear what was needed was a more accessible headset. In October 2023, Meta released Quest 3, which housed much of the tech seen in Quest Pro—minus face and eye-tracking, and at the starting price of $499.

SEE ALSO
22 Great VR Games for Relaxation & Meditation on Quest, PC VR, and PSVR 2

Clamping down yet further on price-performance, Meta released Quest 3S a year later, which houses the same Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset as Quest 3, although including the same cost-saving Fresnel lenses and displays as Quest 2—marking the company’s most energetic push to capitalize on its mixed reality ambitions.

While Meta’s strategy to capture the console price-point with Quest has been a winning strategy thus far, what’s uncertain is whether the company will head back into the ‘Pro’ pricing structure anytime soon. The Information reported earlier last year that Meta was cancelling a potential Quest Pro follow-up, however Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth partically refuted those claims, noting that “there might be a Quest Pro 2, there might not be. I’m not really telling you, but I will say don’t believe everything you read about what’s been stopped or started.”

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Dragon Marble

    To complicate matters, high initial pricing of Quest Pro put a strain on developers, which resulted in very few compelling MR experiences out of the gate.

    Of course. I don't understand why XR companies continue to learn the lesson the hard way. With Quest Pro, you could say that the device was not good enough. But now the Vision Pro, as good a device as you can get with today's tech, faces the same problem. PSVR2 almost died prematurely because of the same thing.

    "Make it desirable before it is affordable" has always been a stupid strategy. Meta's bottom-up approach is the only way. The reason is simple. Hardware need software to be "desirable" in the first place. And software development has adopted the business model of selling cheap copies to a large number of users.

    That means hardware designers don't really have a choice. The first question they need to ask is can we sell tens of millions of units.

    • VrSLuT

      They stopped drinking the the Apple Kool Aid and escaped Apple's reality distortion field but now are really Jonesing that they didn't get some of that sexy eye-tracking!

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      (Consumer) technology that was successful with a rather high price at the beginning, only affordable for a minority, but then used the money from that initial small, but lucrative market to improve tech and lower cost through both larger numbers and production cost reductions: PCs, laptops, telefones, mobile phones, smartphones, CD players, washing maschines, LED lighting, cars, power drills, tape recorder, VHS recorder, refrigerators, Walkman, laser printers, harddisks, SSD, beamer, microwave ovens…

      (Consumer) technology that became successful by pumping billions into it for more than a decade to push it into households without even making back a fraction of the investment:…

      And no, gaming consoles were sold with at least some profit for most of their existence, Nintendo never sold at a loss and Sony stopped doing so after the extremely expensive to produce PS3.

      I believe in XR, because I think that it is genuinely useful and will make people's lives better. But that is also the key to its mass adaption: it first has to become useful/usable (for some, then slowly) for the masses, like all the successful technologies listed above. Claiming that one billionaire's incredible expensive long term bet for more market control and money, enabled by his 60% of Meta's voting shares, would be the only viable approach, is completely ignoring how technology got established so far, blatently ignores the very limited active user numbers the highly subsidized USD 300 Quest collected for those billions, and replaces economic reasoning with wishful thinking.

      Palmer Luckey wrote a famous blog entry in 2018 titled "Free isn't cheap enough" about VR acceptance by most users. And it wasn't an opinion piece, but based on Oculus research that most people wouldn't use a VR HMD even if they got everything for free. With Quest we saw a ~40% retention rate, so 60% won't use a VR HMD they already paid for.

      Price is not the primary issue. USD 1500 would have been completely fine for a business oriented Quest Pro, if it had proven to be (sufficiently) useful for its official target audience. It just utterly failed to do so.

      • Alexisms

        All the items you mention to prove your point have one thing the Pro never had, enough consumers that wanted the product. That plus the price destroyed it. Only compounded by those low sales not encouraging devs to risk anything on making a killer app.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Many of the products I listed could have only dreamt of the est. 50-100K unit sales during their first year that the Quest Pro generated. And there is a decent chance that Meta sold much more Quest Pro than Bigscreen sold Beyond or HTC sold Vive Focus 3. And that's fine, because these serve a niche audience with matching price calculations. But apparently not good enough for Meta.

          The Quest Pro's problem was that the concept was to create a professional HMD, but the only large enough use case they found was VR conferencing. And while the hardware was okay for that, the software wasn't anywhere near ready to make it actually useful. So almost nobody bought it for business use, and Meta tried to instead also sell it to gamers, where it offered very bad value. Had they clearly stated that gamers should wait for Quest 3, and also given the Pro the time and support that HTC gives their Pro HMDs, it might have found its niche, and established Quest for professional use, where service and reliability outweigh specs and price.

          But instead Meta dumped it once it didn't immediately deliver success/large numbers, like they did with several Go/Quest business programs before. Sometimes tech simply needs time to establish itself and then grow and mature from an initialy small use case snd user base, and trying to force it to grow faster will just fail.

          • sfmike

            "Meta dumped it once it didn't immediately deliver success/large numbers, like they did with several Go/Quest business programs before." This is now standard corporate procedure now, i.e. Microsoft. Shareholders dislike the idea of niche markets now as corporate greed is the current working model.

      • Dragon Marble

        None of your examples are applicable. It is the symbiotic relationship between software and hardware that makes gaming consoles different from any "consumer electronics".

        The value of phones, PCs and laptops were clear even in the early days when there were just a few apps. On the other hand, the most common question you hear about the Vison Pro is "what do I do with it".

        A gaming console — in order to realize its entertainment value — needs a constant supply of games that are very expensive to develop but only have limited value for an individual. "Crowd funding" is the only viable business strategy.

        I am not saying you have to sell the consoles at a loss. Just do whatever you can to get them into as many hands as possible.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Whenever I post whole lists of counter examples to show that your "we must force it into the market now" theories are not how technology is actually established, all I get is that none of them are applicable for unspecified reasons, because VR is somehow special, so known economic rules can't be applied.

          Also always ignoring that PCs and mobile phones started in the 70s, laptop in the 80s, with initially miniscule use cases and user numbers. Most people saw no practical use in buying one at all for literally decades. And people absolutely have an idea what to do with AVP, and be it only for watching movies. Just not at that weight and that price.

          How about you come up with examples where any company sucessfully established a technology that most customers at that time/state simply didn't care about, by just ruthlessly burning money for a decade? XR will succeed once it offers enough use for enough people, and until then it will do fine as a niche technology.

          • Dragon Marble

            The example is right in front of your eyes. It's called Quest 3S. It's sold more than PS5 and Xbox combined this holiday season. The kickstart process has completed. The Quest platform is now on a self-sustainable path. The reason Meta hasn't stopped pouring money is because it has bigger prizes in its sight.

          • flynnstigator

            I don’t know if the path is self-sustainable, though. No one’s arguing that the Quest is the dominant VR platform. Given how much money Meta has put into it, it would be weird if it weren’t. But it’s not clear to me that Meta’s place in the market is so solid that they can’t be dethroned if they turn off the money hose.

            I have a large library of games on their store thanks to a referral system that I and others frankly abused for hundreds of dollars in free games, but if someone released a better headset and store, it wouldn’t stop me from switching. I might hang onto the Quest until I was bored with those games, but I would still switch. The real driver of sustainable XR adoption in the future is going to be everyday AR, and I’m not convinced that Meta is going to win that battle, or that their $100B investment into the opening act of gaming-focused VR is going to pay off. They’ve been very good at hardware design and aggressive pricing, but their leadership decisions (like the Quest Pro) show a lack of vision, and Meta’s AR efforts are tied to Microsoft, whose software efforts haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory lately.

          • Dragon Marble

            I don't know if Meta will be the eventual winner, but that's a different question. VR gaming is here to stay regardless because a large number of studios have found their footing in this industry thanks mostly to the Meta platform. Whether Meta will cede this ground to another company in the future or not, those developer will still be here with their accumulated knowledge and established reputation.

          • sfmike

            Working with Microsoft ensures failure because as soon as they don't see a 300% on their investment in a couple quarters they will completely pull out.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            The 2024 Quest 3S may have outsold the four year old PS5 in North America (Xbox sales are way lower, esp. internationally), but the PS5 reached 68mn in lifetime sales by 2024-11, leaving Quest 1/2/3S/3/Pro combined far behind, with much higher retention and follow-up game sales. And while Quest 3S sold better than Quest 3/Pro before (SUCCESS!!!), it sold less than its aging 2020 predecessor sold on Amazon during the 2023 holiday season.

            I'm fully aware why Meta keeps pouring money into XR, and what bigger prizes they are eying for. It's just very obvious that all their effort so far hasn't gotten them anywhere near to where their platform might be considered a potential threat to the Apple/Google mobile duopoly that those players will inevitably try to extend into XR by leveraging their huge user bases. And time is mostly working against Meta.

          • Dragon Marble

            It's been a threat to Apple and Google enough that they both decided they could not sit on the sidelines anymore.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Pretty sure that AndroidXR is mostly a reaction to visionOS, and AVP mostly Tim Cook's decade long attempt to proof that he too can come up with revolutionary products, so his legacy won't be limited to "the great accountant that turned Apple into the first trillion dollar company." Doubt that Meta had a lot to do with it, if anything the lacking mass market acceptance of Quest showed them they didn't need to hurry.

          • mirak

            Yes but even apple who usually have a good sense and is able to create new trends, sort of didn't met it's usual standards.

            It seems the potential that enthousiasts see in VR isn't translating well to mortals yet.
            Sort of like how only nerds, scientists and army could see the point of the first computers.

        • mirak

          But the actual reality is maybe that it's not even sure that you could jump start a VR market right now by giving headsets away for free and releasing a HL Alyx type of game every month.

          The issue seems more and more a slow human paradigm shift to vr, than technical or financial reasons.

          Just think how many of us refused to use cell phones.
          I could have stayed without one for a long time if there was no sign I was about to be excluded naturaly of social activities.

          Is there something similar that is forcing people to VR yet ?
          No, not yet, but I think in maybe 10 or 20 years, something similair will start to happen probably.

          • Dragon Marble

            Well, if you believe human inertia is the main issue, then we can't just wait for this to happen right? Someone has to jumpstart the process.

          • mirak

            I tried to give my first gen headset to a gamer friend and he didn't want it, for what I consider bullshit reasons.

            This litteraly put in my face that it's not even guaranted that giving away headsets for free could jumpstart VR.

            I think John Carmack said something similar that even giving away 20000$ vr light glasses prototypes might not even be enough to jumpstart vr in the way the hype expected it 8 years ago.

            Because VR already started and is not going away, it just seems that consumer usage rate will increase slower than what we hoped or expected.

          • sfmike

            In 10-20 years the middle class won't have enough money to buy a VR headset.

      • NicoleJsd

        That’s much different than a niche entertainment device. You are talking about a whole technology, computers as we know it. Not fitness goggles

        Computers were used for much much more than beat saber

      • mirak

        All of what your describe are slow evolutions of things that started 50 or 100 years ago.

        For instance, between the gramophone and the CD player, there isn't that much evolution in how it's used.
        Same between an oven and a microwave oven.

        Between regular screen, and VR there is a huge paradigm shift, probably even bigger than between books and text on a screen.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          TL;DR: VR came the same long path as any other technology, and is based on very similar usage patterns, people just don't realize because they forget/don't know/ignore its long winded history. What's special about VR is the high level of immersion thanks to using a display type with head tracking, most of the rest is reusing tech/content from somewhere else.

          The first head mounted display was shown 1968 by Ivan Sutherland, and that one is literally why we call VR headsets HMD. So that's 56 years ago, and there were stereoscopic multimedia displays before, like the 1962 Sensorama (lacking head tracking) now considered early VR devices.

          And VR continuously crept forward, first only experimental, then for military, than as business and research tool since the 90's. Only consumer VR is still less than 15 years old, and it was 100% an evolutionary technology enabled by hires phone displays and GPUs running predistortion shaders that allowed using much cheaper lenses that previous HMDs.

          And the "paradigm shift" is head tracking, which allows for a 360° FoV incl. head turns, which massively increases immersion thanks to being in the world rather than looking at it through a small window. Stereoscopy only matters at close range. We already had 3D games you could run and look around in for more than a quarter of a century, where you turned the camera with the mouse instead of you head. RE4/8 on PSVR2 can be played both flat or in VR, there is no fundamental difference like between fixed text on paper vs changeable text on a screen that allows for many more and different use cases than a book.

          There is a new generation drawn to VR by viral Gorilla Tag videos on TikTok showing a fun way to spend time with friends, but even they will immediarely realize that this is basically just another type of video game played on a new type of display you strap to your head, which allows for the extra immersion only VR can provide. Everything else is mostly an evolution of previous tech, recycled once again. For example the 2006 Nintendo Wiimote was already an inside-out 5DoF controller, and by adding a second (controller/camera), you could do 6DoF tracking a decade before the Oculus Touch controllers appeared.

          I have good reasons why I compare the evolution of VR with other consumer electronics, and why I seriously doubt that Meta's pay-to-win strategy of endless subsidizing has a chance to still succeed, let alone would make sense for any other company. A decade after buying Oculus they are short USD ~100bn for less than 1% of Apple's/Google's active user base, with the Quest 3S selling less on Amazon during the last holiday season than the Quest 2 the year before. At this point Meta's best bet seem to be their Ray-Ban smart glasses, with many companies showing similar glasses with integrated displays at CES 2025. Simply because people actually like and buy these, because they consider them useful, without the need to massivey subsidize them. Just like with other technology before.

          • mirak

            Since we talk about commerical stuff, what matters is when the paradigm shift was made available to consumers more than when it was invented.

            In this regard, there is 90 years between the gramophone available to consumers and the cd.

            I can say I had the Razer Hydra, and had first taste of 1:1 tracking, and also toyed with wiimote as a trackir, or that famous paralax track ir video, that make you understand that paralax can have a pop out effect similar to stereoscopy, and also played with the cardboard.

            Despite all that and knowing the VR is reusing existing technologies, like you could say for all tech by the way, I consider the VR as a paradigm shift made available for consumers, only happened in 2016, with the Vive and Rift.

            So to me, 8 years is nothing at a human society level for something that changes so much how we interact with virtuality, wich we mostly did only by looking at flast screens until now.

            So I agree that technically it's just the viewport on the virtual world that is different, this is clear and simple to me as it is to you that it's not a huge technological leap.

            But psychologically this seems to be huge leap to many people.
            Either because it's too much virtual intensity, or change too much how they got used to enjoy videogames, or that it seems to nerdy.

            You could pour billions in that, you couldn't change this type of perception prejudices and inertia in less than 1 human generation probably.

            I am not beeing negative, and wish it was different, but I am starting to think this is the only rational explanation to how slow it feels it's developping, for something that maybe us tech geeks who always dreamed about that, do not feel it changes that much the paradigm.

            That's why I think the CD compared to tapes, or smartphone compared to dumb phone, is a bad comparison, because the paradigm shift timeline isn't comparable yet.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I've been waiting for VR since the 90's, and when usable HMDs finally appeared a few years ago, I was sure it would take the world by storm, because this was obviously the medium of the future I had been dreaming about for decades.

            And then I was completely baffled when that didn't happen, and the world just didn't care. I must have demoed VR to hundreds of people, all of which were wowed, but almost none ever got a HMD themselves. Very few even asked later if they could try it again. Instead mobile games, the probably least immersive form of video games with the most simplified input played on a display covering ~6° of the horizontal FoV took over more than 50% of all gaming revenue within a few years, and much more of the total play time.

            So something didn't work out. I am actually very disappointed that those few who care about VR are mostly interested in games, while for me VR was always primarily a brain enhancement tool. But at some point I realized that the enourmous potential of VR I still have in my head is only loosely related to what is currently possible, or to what most people are looking for from any technology, which is mostly help with practical use cases, and convenience without requiring a lot of effort.

            I think VR is great because of what I expect it (one day) could do, while most people only look at what it currently actually does, which (unless you value immersion way more than most) isn't a lot besides a wow effect that quickly wears of with miserable ergonomics. So my own positive view includes a lot of projection not really based on the current state of the technology. Which is why I don't see a paradigm shift or even (un-)typical inertia when adapting something new: people have always embraced new technology once it became good enough to improve their lives, and all the technologies listed above were established that way, first by a few willing to go the extra mile, and only later by the masses, once all the rough edges were gone and the use both obvious and effortless.

            And VR simply isn't there yet, or anywhere close go it. It's still mostly a fancy toy for the more nerdy part of the population with seemingly endless potential, but currently only very limited practical use. The big mistake we inside the VR bubble make is insisting that the already available benefits are enough, when in reality they only matter for a rather small group of future oriented enthusiasts. For the vast majority VR simply doesn't offer enough yet to be worth the hassle. IMHO we are the anomaly, the rest of the world that can't be bothered with VR so far are the ones doing a more realistic cost/benefit evaluation based on their own priorities.

            We are still in the gramophone phase with a total of ten records availabe that tend to break after a few uses despite the required huge investment in money, effort and space. Still a huge improvement over the wax covered cylinders used in phonographs, but not yet as user friendly as vinyl records with electric amplifiers with speakers, idiot proof as CDs or as convenient as iPods. And for a lot of people VR will only become interesting once it becomes lile Spotify: its just there and works everywhere without ever having to worry what's going on in the background.

          • mirak

            Yes, the term "paradigm shift" can be applied to different phases depending how you look at it.

            You could say the paradigm shift is only the moment when behavior of the masses will shift to seemlessly use vr.

            I was thinking more of the paradigm shift that was available in 2016, were you started to be able to play the same game or some clone of the game, with or without vr.

            Like for me playing to Pavlov instead of Counter Strike was a no brainer, because it meant like beeing able to paintball or laser game at home.

            But for some reason what I see as a huge paradigm shift, isn't seen as this for other people, or they do not understand it, I don't know, while the same people would be down playing paintball or laser game instantly.

            It's like people are thinking but why would I listen to gramphone music at home with shitty sound, while I can listen and see musician playing at the concert all with amazing sound ?

            Why would I listen to music on a walkman in the street, while I can just think about music in my head when walking, or listen music confortably at home in a sofa ?

            We probably just forget that this technologies had the same inertia, and we can't say they were wrong thinking that in fact.

            But anyway, if VR enthousiast or new tech inventors were not sort of delusional, and knew VR would develop this slowly, we would probably had no vr yet, and that can be said about most tech probably.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

    • mirak

      It took 50 years for consoles phones and PCs and other regular screen based devices to get were they are.

      VR could be just small light glasses with low price, it wouldn't change that it will take time for people to integrate this in their life.

      If you think about flat panels, many people didn't want one because

      • Dragon Marble

        Yes, it'll take time for VR to be as popular as phones and TVs, but it doesn't mean it can't exist in a meaningful way and bring value to millions of people today. However, someone needs to jumpstart the process, which is exactly what Meta did.

  • You can still buy Quest Pro’s ‘Touch Pro’ controllers however, as they support Quest 2 and above.

    Thank god. Those were what convinced me as someone coming from PC VR headset with none insight out tracked controllers (Rift CV1 and Valve Index) to even consider a Quest 3.

    Meta, discontinuing those controllers in the future or even with your next headset would be a big mistake.

  • xyzs

    Just release a Quest 3 premium or Quest 4 with oled screen ASAP…

    That’s all what matters

    • mirak

      Quest Pro isn't OLED

  • Michael Speth

    The price of the Quest Pro is proof that meta cannot sell headsets at the actual cost, $1k should be the price of the Quest 3S while the Quest Pro should be $2k or so.

    Meta can only sell garbage because customers are not willing to pay the actual costs due to the garbage performance and garbage graphics the headset delivers.

    This is why Meta loses BILLIONS per month.

    • Manfred Richter

      they just reported record profit, where do you get your information from?

      • Michael Speth

        If you go to upload VR and see meta-reality-labs-q3-2024-revenue-rebound-continues

        You will find that Meta's VR division has lost about $50 billion since its 2020 creation.

        You do understand the difference between revenue and profit/income?

        • Jedon Thompson

          You realize that all Meta's VR efforts are just to get to AR right? Ray Bans with full phone capability is the end goal, take Samsung, Apple, Google market share in hardware via AR.

          • Michael Speth

            Yes, 100% that Meta wants to enslave its users both capturing everything you see and here and simultaneiously blocking what you see and here depending on their censorship algorithms in the real world.

            They will also debank you as the ultimate weapon against thought crime.

            I am also glad you agree that meta VR has lost $50 billion since its inception of 2020 and is continuing to lose BILLIONS per month in order to sell people garbage hardware.

          • Jedon Thompson

            VR Industry would be pretty much nothing without that Meta cash infusion. Yes of course they want to make money eventually, that is their reason for existence. I too am not in favor of our tech overlords, and yet I still want it. I suppose that you eschew the use of all non ethical VR systems?

          • Michael Speth

            The VR industry is composed mostly of garbageware games that have retarded what VR was since 2020. Meta has done nothing but drag the entire industry down.

            If you look at any full time VR Youtuber, they will admit like Mateo that graphics have become retarded in VR. They just accept the retardation of the industry otherwise they couldn't stay in VR and be saine. VR Content creators for the most part are chearleading garbageware to keep the views and their sanity.

            I would like an ethical approach to Reviewing VR content. Garbage Mobile VR should be labeled separately even if this garbage is ported to steam/psvr2. Unless the ports are outstandig like Star Wars Tailes from the Galaxy's Edge Enhaced Edition on PSVR2, all mobile garbage ware should get a tag.

            When people review discuss mobile ports, they should indidcate that their judgement and scale is based on mobile garbage hardware and is not a comparison against Modern Hardware (Console/PC).

            That would help with transparency. It would also educate people who simply believe Meta Mobile Garbage is what all VR is like. IT IS NOT. We need to break meta mobile garbage hardware's hold on the market.

            The only way is education because Meta is already losing billions per month trying to capture the public.

          • Jedon Thompson

            You seem pretty negative, what are some things you think aren’t garbage?

          • Michael Speth

            There are some very great experiences available for console/pc vr.

            "Gran Turismo 7" (Paid) & "My First Gran Turismo" (Free) are the pinnacle of VR on PS5.

            Of course "Horizon Call of the Mountain" is awesome. The demo is a great entryway to show people what VR is like (the boat ride scene allows people to adjust).

            "Until You Fall" is probably the best VR Melee combat game on the market (avaiable on all platforms). The graphics on PC/PSVR2 are good. I don't believe it is a work out game, it is simply a result of good physics.

            "Star Wars Tails from the Galaxy's Edge" is a really great experience that provides many different VR interactions coupled with adequate progression. I also enjoyed embodying several different unique characters from the SW universe.

            I also enjoyed "Arizona Sunshine 2", that was when the studio was still PC focused. Veritgo Games is now focused on Mobile Garbage hardware and it shows with how terrible metro is when compared to their fairly old Arizona Sunshine 2.

            For awesome graphics and a great puzzle game, Red Matter 2 is it.

          • Jedon Thompson

            I don’t do consoles although I did like Gran Turismo 2 on an emulator in prep for driving my FD3S on Laguna Seca.
            Of course just using the headset as a display etc results in better quality graphics, Meta nor anybody else has 4090 quality on a headset. I guess you are just not a fan of any standalone VR.
            The best melee in Battle Talent in MR mode, it’s really good. Still haven’t found a better fighting sim than Thrill of the Fight despite the terrible graphics.

          • Michael Speth

            Without Dynamic Foveated Rendering (DFR), the nvidia rtx 4090 is simply not good enough. The next rtx5090 won't be good enough either.

            Eye tracking is that important to graphics and Meta has proven they really don't care about eye tracking because their goal isn't making great gaming VR headsets. It is as you pointed out, making garbage hardware they can push onto the masses.

            It is really a big loss for PSVR2 on PC to not have implemented Eye Tracking. I can understand that Sony maybe didn't want to pay Tobii licensing fees on the PC for the eye tracking software – that is my suspecision of why eye tracking is not on PC for PSVR2.

            DFR is what allows GT7 to look so good on the PSVR2. Without eye tracking, the graphics would be much worse.

            Even on garbage hardware like Quest 3, eye tracking COULD allow for higher graphics rendering. But meta doesn't care about that. They care about TEXT and hand tracking. They don't care about VR gaming.

          • Jedon Thompson

            I’ve never had the opportunity to try eye tracking. Hand tracking still isn’t great, it feels awkward to me. I’d rather have full body tracking. I mean, Meta put eye tracking on Quest Pro, seems maybe it cost too much to do it on the Quest 3.

          • Anonymous

            No. He is a known elitist troll and the opposite of Virgin. He will shit on any standalone VR because he couldn't accept that PCVR will never be main stream by itself.

          • Alexisms

            Aw look who's been watching Black Mirror.

          • Michael Speth

            I really enjoyed watching Black Mirror – it is almost as if they are telling us their play book ahead of time.

  • dextrovix

    Michael (incel) Speth: Garbage graphics etc.

    • Davpar

      Yup. Just blocked him. Not worth reading any of his content.

  • Adrian Meredith

    Quest pro should never have been released, the fact that it did shows a poor working culture inside meta

  • sfmike

    Still kicking myself a bought this turkey.