Following a report today which claimed Meta’s upcoming Project Cambria headset would be priced at $800, rather than denying the information as a rumor, the company took the curious step of confirming the headset would be much more expensive.

A report by The Information today, citing an internal roadmap, claimed that Meta is planning to release four new VR headsets by 2024. The first would be Project Cambria, the report says, priced around $800.

Now typically when there’s a leak like this, companies will simply decline to comment on any of it. In this case, Meta took the somewhat odd step of pretty much doing that except for addressing a single point.

A Spokesperson for the company tells Road to VR the $800 price for Project Cambria claimed by the report is not accurate, and further, that the actual price of the headset will be “significantly higher.”

That’s a curious move, but it seems that Meta didn’t want the report to set a false expectation for the price of the headset, which is expected to launch later this year.

Meta Slashes Quest 2 Price to New Low Ahead of Suspected Quest 3 Lite

We’ve known from the bits Meta has shared previously that Project Cambria wasn’t going to aim for the lowest possible cost like Quest. But it’s a bit surprising that the company says the actual price will “significantly” exceed $800.

If the reported price of $800 was within $100 or even $200 of the actual price, it doesn’t seem like it would be that big of a deal. But because the company took the odd step of not just saying ‘the price is incorrect’, but also adding that it will be higher, makes us think the real price will certainly exceed $1,000.

That’s definitely expensive for a standalone VR headset, but not unheard of. HTC’s Vive Focus 3—which is aimed at enterprise customers—is priced at $1,300. If Meta sees itself competing for those same customers, they may aim to come close to that price (if not a bit under).

– – — – –

Interestingly, the episode bears resemblance to something that happened in the early Oculus days, before the company was absorbed deeply into Meta. Back in 2015, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey said the launch price of the original Oculus Rift headset would be “roughly in [the $350] ballpark.” But when the headset’s price was officially revealed at $600, nearly double the ‘ballpark’ price, people weren’t happy.

This was before the launch of Oculus Touch, the headset’s motion controllers; later when someone asked Luckey what the ‘ballpark’ price would be for Touch he remarked, “no more ballparks for now. I have learned my lesson.”

Whether that’s a long forgotten memory for Meta or not, the company must have felt it was quite important to get ahead of the Project Cambria price discussion before it got out of their hands.

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.

Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • Tommy

    Chances are now “significantly higher” that I won’t be buying a Facebook Cambria.

    • David

      It’s targeted towards business users anyway, so you probably wouldn’t want to buy one to begin with

      • Tommy

        Yeah, it’s not for me.

      • NL_VR

        I would have bought it if it was cheaper.
        Mixed reality is verry interesting but not many devs will try that get if the hardware is to expensive.
        Well Only wait for Quest 3 then :P

        • Yeah, me too: wait another year & a half for Quest 3.
          My understanding is that Quest 3 will incorporate a lot of
          what’s in Cambria, anyways, but at a consumer-friendly Quest price.

          • NL_VR

            Yes i think that to

          • Anastasia Mitchell

            I get paid $98 per hour to do a regular job at home.~kk308~I never thought this was possible, after all one of my closest friends made $25k in just 3 weeks doing this side job He made me join.~kk308~See this page for more information.
            —->>>> http://glo­.­wf/jOd3F

          • Dave

            Nice one Cary I agree, Quest 3 looks more reasonable now. For me I don’t mind paying more if it translates to performance in games I play notably MSFS so Quest 3 is more likely now. ps don’t know why 6 ppl downvoted and left no comments, how rude!

        • chuckdaly

          I’ve always believed the Lynx R-1 will be the go-to Mixed Reality headset for indie devs. Consumer version is $599 and $1099 for enterprise edition.

        • Kyle Morrison

          You obviously know nothing about devs or business users

          • NL_VR

            i meant more like we not se “MR Games” in a big scale yet if its to expensive.
            experimental stuff yes.

            Do you know anything you want to share?

      • Bob

        As far as I’m aware, Meta doesn’t specifically serve enterprise customers.

        • David

          I guess more accurately it’s intended to replace a laptop for productivity. It’s not geared towards gaming as far as I know.

      • deckert

        It is highly doubtful Cambria is targeting Business users. Meta’s Oculus (now Quest) for business appears to not have been successful – since Meta pretty much killed the program and Enterprise Quests (they are no longer available). If Cambria is targeting the enterprise – you would have seen a lot more job openings targeting experienced enterprise devs and product managers. Meta is not making money on their hardware – they are making money on software and ad tracking/advertising – which flys in the face of what the enterprise is looking for.

        • Andrew Jakobs

          It’s not highly doubtful, Meta said it themselves that cambria would be targeted for professionals/businesses not consumers.

    • Hatori Hanzo

      my quest 2 still runs 8k porn, what else is vr needed for

      • Tommy

        Ha! You got me there. Can’t think of anything else needed

  • I thought Meta’d shock everybody and make Cambria $499.
    But no way, no how am I paying four figures for an AIO
    that’s only *slightly* better than Quest 2 ….
    I’ll look at AppleVR & Deckard first
    before I’d ever even consider a $1000+ Cambria.

    I’d hate to have to use the men’s room and accidentally walk in on
    Mr. Sulu getting a photon topedo shot up his Jefferies tube ….

  • XRC

    Pricing seems appropriate?

    Consider how many Index were sold by Valve at $1000, there seems to be a demand for these more expensive XR products, whether gaming or business.

    • Kraut

      Gabe from valve said some time ago in an Inteview:
      the tried to hit a very low price target for the Steam deck..
      so the smallest version is maximum cheap
      they thought, about 70% would buy this version..
      now its other way round: about 70-80% of the preorders opt for the most expensive version of the steam-deck
      people are willing to pay more than some would think
      the Index is – besides the quest – most sold headset, more than HTC, HP, Pimax, … you name it
      so price is not everything

      there were rumors, that 3 Millionen CAmbrias should be build in the first year…
      hmm.. 3 Million at over 1000Euro – we will see
      iam still curious for the Cambria

      • XRC

        The enthusiast market across multiple retail sector have shown that a smaller group of people are keen to pay more for higher quality of experience, whether VR headset, home cinema or hi-fi audio.

        Price versus perceived value are very different proposition

      • Agree 1000%.
        People don’t care about the cost: they just want quality, and the cost is the cost.
        Focus 3 didn’t fail because it’s $1400. It failed because it’s a POS for $1400 ….
        If it had $1400 worth of quality in it, people would gladly pay for it.

        • Cless

          I think this is the first time I feel bad about downvoting you. I do agree with what you say there.

  • Till Eulenspiegel

    The report claimed that Meta will be releasing 4 headsets within the next 2 years. So 2 headsets this year and 2 next year? Even if you bought this Quest Pro, it will be obsolete soon – like your Quest 2, or the Quest/Go before it.

    Meta/Facebook has no experience selling consumer devices, they don’t care about legacy support – they will just keep releasing new models and forget about the old ones. PSVR has a longer life and support and is a better choice if you just want to play games.

    • ApocalypseShadow

      That’s my take as well. As if it’s to flood the market with different tiers of headsets before the competition gets out the door. With the low end being subsidized. When the thing actually needed is content for entertainment and productivity.

      It’s why I like consoles because you know there’s a long life ahead and content. And not dropped like Go, Quest, Rift and Rift S. PSVR is going on 6 years and has many games. Only a refreshed design but same product. Judging by that, PSVR 2 with better technology, has the potential to surpass that easily. No worrying about controllers or game port inconsistencies. And, with a company that makes games for breakfast for 25 years. With eye tracking and foveated rendering, PSVR 2 can easily be used on PS6 and use it’s power. If Sony redesigns it with wireless, it’s still useable on PS6.

      Flooding markets with product is never a good thing. Hopefully, Facebook knows that and is doubling their efforts on games and productivity uses.

    • It’s not two in 2022 and two more in 2023.
      It’s one in 2022, two more in 2023 & one in 2024 ….

      ✅ Quest 2 PRO [Cambria 1]: 2022
      ✅ Quest 3: 2023
      ✅ Quest 3 PRO [Cambria 2]: 2023
      ✅ Quest 4: 2024

      • Till Eulenspiegel

        Doesn’t matter. It’s enjoyable to see Zuck going bankrupt making toys for you guys.

      • Yes, but the problem is that I’m not going to spend 1200$ in 2022 for a headset that becomes obsolete one year after…

      • VR5

        I agree with the timeline but not with the models. We’ll only get one gaming refresh as they treat it like a console. And the first AR glasses are already confirmed for 2024 so that’s your “Quest 4”.

        A Cambria 2 similar to Quest 2, with 1 being a test run with lower shipment numbers and 2 a better and cheaper follow up after they confirmed it resonates with the audience. Although Cambria 2 being cheaper might be wishful thinking.

        • kool

          Id bet on a 5g streaming headset, I think they said four headsets not including the ar headset somewhere.

          • VR5

            I see. Still think they will not want to have too many gaming headsets competing as that will create doubts in customers what and when to buy (do I wait for a better headset coming out soon?).

      • kool

        I think at least one of those headsets is going to be a 5g cloud streaming headset with a subscription.

        • Yes, likely Quest 3 next Autumn.

          • kool

            Idk I think the quest 3 will have a similar form to the current quest with Cambria features and the new snapdragon chip. It seems the Cambria form is expensive with it’s pancake lenses. I expect that form will show up on the quest 4 with the 5g streaming in 2024, if it’s expected to be under $500.

          • Cless

            Dude, again? You can’t keep doing this to me. Or you upvote yourself everytime, or don’t! I’m not downvoting you anymore if you keep at it!

      • dk

        cambria 2 in 2024

        • No, 2023.

          • dk

            2024 ….it’s in the other rtvr article about the 4 planned headsets

  • mappo

    Presumably The Information‘s source for their $800 price is also Facebook, as nobody but Facebook would know anything about their price target. So what game is Facebook playing here?

    • Sofian

      $800 is the cost not the price.

      • Bob

        “If the reported price of $800 ”

        It’s price.

        • Sofian

          We heard of the $800 rumor like 2 weeks ago and even back then it was the cost to produce the headset not the price.
          Meta confirmed that the price would be much higher so I don’t know what you want to argue about here.

          • Bob

            Have you read the article or did you skip straight to the comments section? It literally states within the first paragraph:

            “Following a report today which claimed Meta’s upcoming Project Cambria headset would be priced at $800

            Followed by:

            “The first would be Project Cambria, the report says, priced around $800.”

            Followed by:

            “”A Spokesperson for the company tells Road to VR the $800 price for Project Cambria claimed by the report is not accurate, and further, that the actual price of the headset will be “significantly higher.””.

            Read the article.

          • Sofian

            The confusion came from someone who like you doesn’t understand the difference between the price and the cost.
            The article is about Meta clarifying that.

          • Bob

            No I think the confusion stems from you hence why you’re still here trying your damnedest to mask your severe lack of reading comprehension skills by insulting my intelligence.

          • Sofian

            What intelligence?
            You brought nothing to the discussion so far, I don’t see what your comments have to do with the original question of my answers.

          • Bob

            And what discussion?

            “$800 is the cost not the price.” Your comment (false).

            “It’s price.”. My correction (fact).

          • Octo

            You’re wrong Bob, well, partly. The claimed price of 800 was wrongly based on/confused with the cost of producing the unit which is 800.
            You are right in that the article say it’s the claimed price, but the article is wrong about that.

          • Guest

            Who’s price and who’s cost??? Both price and cost are weasel words to companies that subsidize hardware, not facts!

          • Hey, cool yer jets, fliplip!

    • Sofian

      nobody but Facebook would know anything about their price target

      Right but the supply chain who leaked the information has a good idea of how much it will cost to produce.

  • xyzs

    I don’t want only 2.2k per eye, ~100 degrees FoV and LCD panels if this costs 1500…

    • Cless

      EW, LCD panelss? I’m kind of grossed out by any +$1000 headset using LCD at this point. We got the fabs churning high res OLED now. Even PSVR2 will be driving those ffs.

  • VR5

    Since the Cambria feature set was leaked I was planning to (pre)order it day one but I was expecting a price just shy of 4 digits. So good to have confirmation but it went to wait and see (especially for what competitors announce). Now hoping for below €1200.

    • MeowMix

      the specs were ‘leaked’ by Youtubers; so not very credible.
      Something the community has seemed to have forgotten, is about a year ago it was rumored via code leaks (via the community) that there’s 2 higher end headsets, one with 2k per eye resolution, and one with 3k per eye resolution.

      Perhaps the recent leaks by SadbutBrad were only of the 2k prototype; maybe the final production unit will feature the 3k per eye panel.

      • VR5

        Well for me the leaked info that convinced me was color passthrough, self-tracking controllers with pre-installed batteries and base/charging stations, and better multitasking (which was recently affirmed with the supposed 12 GB RAM). Also eye/face tracking, to a lesser degree; I’m interested as a dev to include those features in my games.

        Higher resolution is not a big sell for me although I’m sure it will impress once I have one.

  • Adrian Meredith

    Seems a bit excessive when supposedly it has the same soc as quest 2. I can’t see how this will compete with apple’s VR device if they launch this year

    • MeowMix

      the XR2 is over 2 years old at this point (remember, the Quest2 released in 2020, and the XR2 debuted Q1 of 2020).
      I wouldn’t be surprised if the XR lineup gets a refresh using a SD 888 or SD 8Gen1, and we see it featured first in the Cambria headset (like how the XR2 was featured first in the Quest2).

      • Cless

        Yeah, it would be deeply sad if they used the XR2, which by todays technology is already archaic for a +$1000 headset.

  • Zack71

    ok guys, is a lie a dream that doesn’t come true or is it something worst?

  • silvaring

    All those ‘ballparks’…. Pepperidge farm remembers….

  • Bob

    Honestly a little surprising considering that Meta is presumably a company that only develops consumer facing products much like Apple. I’m not at all aware of their strategy to serve enterprise customers. The strategic use of the word “significantly” implies at least several hundred dollars (at least $500+) over the rumored $800 price which firmly puts this product in the ballpark of the Vive Focus 3 at $1300+.

    It’s perfectly understandable why Meta would publicly shutdown the $800 rumor mill obviously to tame expectations but, at the same time, it seems a little strange to price something so extraordinarily high for a product in a consumer market that has yet to mature. At their price-point, this “exotic” product would be competing with higher-end laptops like the Macbook Air. Is that their goal? Is the product so advanced that its able to act as a monitor/productivity replacement? Because according to them it sure seems like it.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Uhm, they always said the cambria headset would be targeted at the ‘professional’markt, not consumer.

      • Bob

        Not aware of that because they never explicitly stated the product is only available to business customers or the business/enterprise market.
        Unless you have some information from somewhere that pinpoints this then it stands to reason that Cambria is openly available for normal consumers i.e. the consumer market.

        • MeowMix

          Mark recently used the phrases: ‘focused on work use cases‘ and that the Cambria series would ‘eventually replace your laptop or work setup‘. Interpret it the way you want. Source: Zuck’s FB page.

          I see Cambria more as a Prosumer device, so available for business and consumer, but the focus of Cambria being for productivity and work are pretty clear.

          • Bob

            There’s no confusion about the use-case of Cambria but rather its availability to which market. Perhaps we’re getting into semantics here but Meta haven’t specifically announced that the product is only available for businesses as far we’re concerned. An enterprise only product isn’t an off-the-shelf product readily accessible to the average consumer meaning you cannot access the ability to purchase without providing legitimate company credentials. This is an entirely different market from what you’re used to seeing.

            You’ve said it correctly; the Cambria is most likely and inherently a consumer device at the higher end that can also be accessed by businesses with a yearly business fee for services and support.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Oh dear, in that case there really isn’t a VR headset that is business only, as all VR-headsets can be bought by consumers, if you’re willing to spend the money. Just like the HTC Vive Focus 3 is available to buy by consumers, it has always been stated that it’s been targeted for businesses.

            Because you can buy it as a consumer doesn’t mean it’s a consumer product, it’s all about the intended target, and for Meta the cambria is targeted at professionals/businesses as it’ll probably also come directly with the business license instead of like with the Quest where the enterprise version is a couple of hundred dollar more expensive even though there really isn’t a difference (except in firmware/software).

          • Bob

            Availability and target audience are two entirely different things. We know the target audience of Cambria but we don’t know its availability of which market. What does this mean? Well two things; are valid business credentials a prerequisite for purchase? Is there a yearly service and support fee? If so, it’s an enterprise-specific product. If not, it’s a consumer product. Sure, one could argue a “consumer” could theoretically go through (or bypass) this entire process to obtain the product but that doesn’t instantly make it a consumer product because of the clear barriers to entry.

            “Oh dear, in that case there really isn’t a VR headset that is business only, as all VR-headsets can be bought by consumers”

            Patently false. Ever heard of Varjo XR-1/VR-1? Or VRgineer’s XTAL? How about StarVR One (first iteration)? Enterprise-specific products for enterprise customers in an enterprise market; there are barriers to entry here. Your interpretation of the term “consumers” is questionable at best.

            Project Cambria is, as far as the general public is concerned, and as of now unless stated otherwise, a consumer product targeted for consumers that wish to use it for productivity reasons in a consumer market. They never explicitly stated the product is “for businesses only” only that its intended purpose is for productivity and work. A consumer product in a consumer market can also be used for work.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Because something doesn’t gave a yearly subscription/license doesn’t make them consumerproducts. And because consumers also can buy it doesn’t make it a consumerproduct perse.

          • NL_VR

            i think you understand what he talking about you just dont want to show that you understand.
            i cant buy those enterprise products he mention, yes i can if i somehow bypass something maybe in another country etc.
            hey i cant even buy an enterprise quest even if i had a bussiness because its to small.

      • NL_VR

        Of course it will be consumer.
        Or “prosumer”
        I dont know if you mean enterprice by “proffesional”

        • Andrew Jakobs

          Professional like independent designers, contractors etc.
          Just like the HTC Vive Focus 3 which is mainly targeted at businesses and professionals, yeah it can be bought by consumers, but it’s not what HTC aims the headset at.

          • NL_VR

            i think Cambria is targeted to people that want to work remote @home etc. So they dont have to come into office.

      • dk

        it won’t be any more for professionals than iphone pro max
        it’s just the high end headset it’s not a different kind of thing like enterprise headset
        ….they will just have a version for that just like how quest2 has enterprise version

        • Andrew Jakobs

          Don’t count on it, the cambria will probably come with the same license as the quest 2 enterprise version. Just like the htc focus 3 is released as an business/enterprise version without a ‘regular’ version.

          • dk

            what r u talking about…’s a consumer headset even Zuck said it right … will have enterprise version for sure ….they always have that option ….just for enterprise doesn’t fit his plans for growth with q3 next year and c2 in 2024

  • Carlos

    I just wanted a headset with higher IPD range :/
    Oculus Quest 2 made my experience much worse than OC1 because of IPD (I have 72mm).

  • Michael Lupton

    Honestly was nice of them to clarify that.

  • Paperlaunch

    Weight reduction is a big deal. Quest 2 gets kind of heavy after an hour. Still worth the $1500 if it’s a big upgrade.

    • Grateful Fred

      If it’s primarily aimed at the enterprise market then as far as games are concerned they’ll probably just be quick ports. No-one’s going to invest time and money developing games that will only sell a few for the Cambria compared to the many more on Quest 2.

      • NL_VR

        Cambria can do everything Quest 2 can

      • dk

        whatever they r targeting…it’s not an enterprise headset like hololens or the enterprise version of quest….it’s a consumer product ….u might as well be saying no one will invest time in making games for iphonepromax because iphone 13 is out ….it’s not a different class thing…it’s just a different price point

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Maybe get a better headstrap, especially if you still just have the simple strap.

  • “HTC’s Vive Focus 3—which is aimed at enterprise customers—is priced at
    $1,300. If Meta sees itself competing for those same customers, they may
    aim to come close to that price (if not a bit under).”

    It would very much surprise me if Meta is aiming at that customer base. And I expect a technically superior, but also much pricier, product to be launched by Meta.

    • dk

      the business version of cambria could be similar to focus 3 ….the consumer one a bit less

      • what consumer version? Cambria is just one HMD!

        • dk

          quest headsets have an enterprise version for businesses …….I was saying Cambria will also have an enterprise version and that will be more expensive than the consumer version

  • I have high hopes for eye tracking and all of it’s promise but…. really… I’m not unhappy with the Quest 2 as it is. What I’m lacking is content.

    I need a gun-wielding adventure through some AAA environments, like Stormland. Or some survival and hunting like Zero Horizon. Or some multiplayer space epic like Star Citizen. When the biggest thing in VR lately is an old Gamecube title (aka RE4), you know we’re hurting for content!

  • Till Eulenspiegel

    Meta already lost $20 billion from VR business. The more headsets they make, the more money they lose – they already told shareholders that they won’t see any return for their investment until next decade.

    You will see them losing billions every year – I am actually curious to see if they can sustained 10 years of losses.

    • The iPhone made Apple a three TRILLION dollar company.
      AIOs are the next iPhone. Meta shareholders absolutely will wait.

  • wotever99ninynine

    If only they would put some of that nice new tech in a simple wired headset. Saving costs of internal components such as cpu/gpu ram, storage, battery, cooling etc. Then maybe us pcvr users could afford a nice new headset. Not everybody wants mobile VR. Especially when thd price is as high as a gaming pc anyway. Save some money and weight and give us two versions.

    • dk

      pico could copy it plus display port

  • Powerchimp

    If you factor in what you’ll truly pay in terms of your privacy, personal data, and eventually your soul, yeah the price is going to be much higher.

    They can change their name and logo, but Zucks business model is the same as it was when he stole the idea that became the society destroying shit-hole facebook.

    Gaming is not zucks endgame. You are.

    • NL_VR

      Ok……. bye

  • Martijn

    Does anybody know whether the software (games etc) for the Quest 2 will be usable with this new project (Quest 3)

    • Tommy

      It’s not the Quest 3 but should be able to run any Meta store games.

  • Chris Leathco

    Definitely skipping Cambria. One of the reasons I chose the Quest over the Valve Index was price, the second convenience. That being said I was an early adopter with a 64 gig unit. I recently ordered a 256 headset only off eBay (100 bucks so not too bad) to upgrade my setup. Figure for now I will use my original 64 gig for Sidequest stuff, and the 256 for Quest 2 store stuff, til they release a new consumer headset. Here’s hoping next time we actually get an SD card slot.

    • dk

      this is a consumer headset ….it’s the same as iphone/iphonepromax ….it’s just the $1000-$1500 version

  • Saty–Chary

    Two words: ‘cloud rendering’ – gets rid of client device complexity, power reqs, etc, etc.

  • karen

    Oculus needs to focus on customer support instead of releasing more expensive headsets. I can’t imagine dropping that kind of money knowing that if anything goes wrong with it, there is no recourse in getting any kind of help in a timely manner that upholds the warranty.