So you’re thinking about getting into VR and looking to do it on the cheap. Could a Quest 2 headset be worth buying in 2025? Read on for our no-nonsense recommendation.

Let’s make this real easy:

If you can find Quest 2 (128GB or more) for less than $100: Buy it

Why: Quest 2 is officially a last-gen headset, but that doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Quest 2 headsets in 2025 can still play 99% of the content in the Quest library, and Meta is still updating the headset with the latest software, for now. It’s easy to find a second-hand headset for less than $100 (make sure controllers are included!). At that price there’s plenty of fun and value to be had with everything the headset can do today. Not only that, but Meta’s latest headset, Quest 3S, is actually pretty similar to Quest 2. It’s just about the same size, same battery life, same lenses, and same resolution. For the most part it just has a more powerful processor which means it will be able to play games in the future that require that horsepower, but for now almost none of the Quest library needs that extra power.

If you can’t find Quest 2 for less than $100: Buy Quest 3S or Quest 3

Why: Every dollar you spend above $100 for a Quest 2 has diminishing returns in value compared to buying one of Meta’s newer headsets. Quest 3S and Quest 3 share a newer processor compared to Quest 2. Over the next few years developers will prioritize the newer headset, which means fewer games will run well (or at all) on Quest 2 over time.

As for deciding between Quest 3S or Quest 3, check out our no-nonsense recommendation right here.

If you want to dig into more detail, check out our full specs comparison of Quest 2, Quest 3S, and Quest 3 here.

That’s it. That’s the whole article.

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."
  • ApocalypseShadow

    No. Don't even waste your time or money. The money you spend could be put towards a better headset. If you don't have the money, save until you do have the money. Even the 3S, that can play everything Quest 2 had and everything Quest 3 will get. Any batteries or straps you might buy for Quest 2 will push you closer to 3S. And the games will run better on newer hardware.

    As soon as that buyer runs into a game they want that can't be played on that older headset like Batman, they will fall into buyer's remorse and want to sell it. Even a casual user would be better off ignoring Quest 2. What's the support like when it's no longer sold? What's the support like from Facebook if it breaks? We saw how that software bug bricked headsets. Eventually, there will be no Quest 2 replacement as they won't have refurbished stock to give you. You might get lucky and they send you a 3S. But why chance it. Just get the better headset. With the better support, the better graphics, the better resolution.

    But it's your money. Throw it away if you like. It's just my opinion. I mean hey. Might as well recommend an Oculus Go. Right?

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Given that the Quest 2 sold way better in 2023 at USD 249 than the Quest 3S at USD 299 in 2024, that most Quest users only buy very few apps at all, most of which will be casual games, and that there are very few games that actually require a Quest 3S/S, this is pretty bad advice for anybody that isn't an enthusiast.

      There are huge factions of rhythm game/Gorilla Tag only players that would basically waste USD 200 by going with a Quest 3S instead of a USD 100 Quest 2. Paying tripple for what is a rather theoretical future option makes little sense for these user themselves, and its also bad advice for the overall community too. If someone buys a used headset, it comes from another person that no longer wants it and therefore won't buy any more games. Anyone picking up a used headset at least could increase the pool of active users that developers rely on. By artificially defining the entry level at USD 299/Quest 3S, you basically lose all the people who aren't willing to pay that much for a still exotic gaming device that more than half of the buyers stop using after a few months. Most of these won't safe to pay 200% extra, instead they simply won't get any Quest at all.

      Getting a Quest 3S makes sense if you already know that you like VR, will keep using it for a long time, but for some reason don't want to pay USD 499 for a Quest 3. For someone new and not yet convinced a used USD 100 Quest is a much lower entry barrier, so they will be much more willing to give it a try, with literally hundreds of games that work just fine. If they actually like it, they can still upgrade to a Quest 4S in 2026 without missing a lot.

      And we have seen time and time again that outside of the enthusiasts, a low(ered) price is very much a driving factor for increased headset sales, so this isn't just about a small group of people that simply cannot afford it. For a large number of people VR simply hasn't proven that it is worth even USD 299 yet.

      • Darren

        You get better graphics, mixed reality apps, better wireless PCVR support, and the ability to play outdoors during the day in everything but strong summer sunlight with the Quest 3/3S compared to the Quest 2. Being able to play outdoors during the day is a big difference maker.

  • Till Eulenspiegel

    "If you are poor get Quest 2, if you are rich get Quest 3."

    You don't even need an article, just one sentence will suffice.

  • LP

    If you have quest 2 – do not buy quest 3.
    If you do not have a headset – buy quest 3.

    Or you can wait for the GTA SA that Zuckerberg promised and only then buy an actual headset. /s

    • There is no "GTASA" for Quest. lol

      Just like there's no "Onward 2", etc., etc.

      Zuck bullshits about everything.

      It's a cryin' shame that such a wonderful piece of hardware

      hasta be associated with such a piece of allegedly Human filth as him.

  • disqus_o4N8KCTF90

    And if you buy a Quest 3 or 3s there is a quest 4 arriving next year which will have exclusive games which won’t run on your new quest 3 headset leaving you pretty annoyed.

    • kakek

      MAYBE not next year, but hte year after.
      But yes.

  • disqus_o4N8KCTF90

    Given that Meta are removing fact checkers from Facebook in the US and are happy to cosy up to the racist Trump regime starring the fascist Elon Musk everybody should be avoiding quest headsets now.

  • kakek

    I just hope they don't cut the Quest 2 from getting any new game before the Q4 is out.
    Wich is a 50/50 I'd say.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Meta cannot afford to do that. We don't have sales numbers for Quest 3/3S nor know how many Quest 2 are still in use. Previous estimates put Quest 2 at ~20mn units, of which 8mn would be still in use with the ~40% retention rate we have seen before. Quest 3 targeting enthusiasts at a higher price might have better retention, but sold less, maybe 2mn. Quest 3S as the latest model sold less than Quest 2 in 2023, probably less than 4mn so far. It basically just replaces Quest 2, targeting the same buyers, plays most games exactly the same and should see similar retention to Quest 2. Maybe slightly worse, as Bosworth mentioned that later waves of VR users engaged less with the platform. Basically those that really like VR already got in during the early days, with Quest 2 now still making up significantly more than half of the active Quest user base.

      Many VR developers have reported declining sales, and that esp. the sales during the holiday season were worse than expected. This could have numerous reasons, from a general shift towards free-to-play to Meta pushing their Quest+ subscription, more competition after the integration of App Lab or newer Quest owners just being less willing to purchase apps. Whatever the cause, falling software sales will have a negative impact on the number of games developed, which in turn will have a negative impact on how willing people are to buy new Quest headsets.

      So cutting Quest 2 off from new games would be pretty much a suicidal move for Meta. They just made it impossible for devs to still support Quest 1, but Quest 1 sold less than 10% of Quest 2, hasn't been sold for more than four years and only a few were still in use. People are still pissed, which usually makes them more reluctant to buy another Meta headset. I'm still pissed they did the same with the Oculus Go in 2020 for no technical reason and against the wishes of devs and users, only 2.5 years after its release, . Imaging how users and developers would react if Meta ditched Quest 2 before Fall 2026/Quest 4, when Meta actively promoted and sold Quest 2 until June 2024.

      • guest

        Yes, pissed is an understatement. Developers are even less forgiving than users because they waste BOTH time and money on a platform!

      • XRC

        Are we seeing a similar similar situation developing as we see on mobile with Android users (Meta Quest in this case) spending little on apps and purchases once the smartphone is purchased, whilst iOS users (PCVR in this case) spend considerably more.

        There is a consensus that PCVR users don't buy software, but perhaps this is more true of the newer and younger Quest users receiving headsets as gifts and enjoying free software like Gorilla Tag?

        Building an expensive gaming PC for PCVR is a commitment in itself, and users will want something to run on that PC? As the Devs behind "Into the Radius 1/2" recently mentioned on interviews, they've done well on Steam indicating that good games sell to PCVR user base.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          TL;DR: The lack of large audiences/business models should prevent an Android-like situation with mostly free-to-play apps, but it still could get bad for developers relying on direct app sales; PCVR gamers always bought software, even more per user than on Quest, only the install base is much smaller

          I don't think we will get to an Android situation where lots of (game) developers don't even bother releasing a paid version on Android, instead by default going for an ads/micro-transaction based model, while still offering the same apps on iOS for a single purchase. Mostly because the ads/micro-transaction model only works with rather large user numbers that Quest doesn't have.

          Gorilla Tag may now be the financially most successful VR app based on selling avatar cosmetics, but there is only a limited audience for similar titles. Similar to Fortnite, which now generates more than USD 6bn each year for Epic, a lot of competitors will see this brillant money printing press, try to release a competitor, and horribly fail (at very high prices) because they cannot lure away players from the current champion. The main value of Gorilla Tag isn't the unique game play, but its existing users that uses the game to hang out with each other, similar to people playing Counterstrike with friends on weekends as a virtual meeting space.

          Ads view financed apps require very large audiences and companies buying ad space. So far nobody has found a way to make ads work in VR, though I am sure that hundreds of people at MRL do nothing but come up with future ad concepts for Horizon Worlds. The sole non-direct sales model that so far seems to work pretty well on Quest is selling content DLC, which drives the financial success of Walkabout Mini Golf (selling new courses), Puzzling places (selling monthly 3D puzzle packs) and of course Beat Saber (selling new licensed music packs), very likely generating many times the revenue from DLC than from the base game.

          I don't know where things are going, but it would be very bad if we end up with most Quest players only playing a few free massive multiplayer games and never really buying any apps. Developing for VR was difficult enough in the past, and instead of getting easier with larger user numbers, it now seems to get harder for many studios. After flocking to Quest for years due to its larger user base, a shift back more towards PCVR and PSVR2 may be a reaction, as gamers that paid USD 1000+ for their hardware are very likely more willing to also pay for software than mobile VR users that often got their HMD for free as a Christmas present.

          For games that sell on both Quest and Steam, there are usually about four times as many reviews on Quest as on Steam. People keep claiming that games sell ten times as often on Quest as on Steam, but these were mostly a few special cases like Ultrawings 2 that for a number of reasons sold esp. poor on Steam. Despite high Steam VR usage last December, the active Quest user base should still be at least five times larger than the Steam PCVR user base (with 34% Quest 2 and 22% Quest 3/3S as the main PCVR HMDs), so just based on that the average PCVR user is about 25% more willing to buy the same VR game than a Quest standalone user. As PCVR gamers tend to prefer games that the Quest cannot run, therefore not allowing for a direct comparison of the review numbers, the actual number is probably higher than 25%. The problem isn't the PCVR users reluctance to buy (which may indeed be/become a problem with the Gorilla Tag crowd on Quest), but still the number of PCVR users being too low and growing only very slowly.

          • XRC

            Thanks for your analysis always very interesting.

            The PCVR simulation market seems to be thriving in terms of selling high resolution headsets (several thousand a year is good business) and dlc at often considerable costs, even if the base game is free or reasonably priced.

            for example DCS World is free on steam but there are 158 pieces of paid dlc, I want to fly the F/A-18c it's £63.35.

            of course I will pay because I can see the value (maybe it was my childhood dream to fly this aircraft)

            the dlc is pocketchange compared to the custom built RTX 4080 desktop and Pimax Crystal with lighthouse tracking that I use, plus, hotas, direct drive wheel/load cell pedals and simulation seating.

            it also easy to purchase additional dlc over time, users can spend $100s on a single title.

            from an article Skarredghost published in 2020 (Is Oculus Quest killing PC VR?) this was an idea we talked about, and it's proving true for the simulation market:-

            "The PC VR users will prove to be willing to pay much more (even $60-100) for a single VR game if it guarantees to have the stunning quality that can be appreciated inside an expensive VR rig. My friend Rob Cole says that he will happily pay for that. If this happens, fewer users can create more profit for VR developers, making the PC market worthwile again"

            if I look at a title like Into the Radius, I paid full price and will pay again (as I did with early access sequel Into the Radius 2). These high quality PCVR focused titles have huge value for me, I've spent 100+ hours in that game world, it gives me warm feelings about the somewhat ridiculous hardware costs. Even now I'm figuring out how to raise some money to buy RTX 5090..

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            TL;DR: I'm very sure that VR/XR will not only survive, but grow, and that there is still enough money to be made for many developers. But too much now depends on the (lack of) success of existing and expected HMDs and the reaction of Meta and others to be sure by which path this will happen.

            I'm somewhat puzzled where VR is currently going, and it was already fuzzy before. For years everybody counted on Meta to open the market with their budget friendly standalone HMDs that solved the "VR is too expensive" and parts of the "VR is too complex/cumbersome" problem. Now Meta itself seems to be running into problems with slowing growth and the purchase behavior of the user group they attracted with low prices. At the same time we suddenly see a rush of rather expensive HMDs entering the market.

            Meta of course won't drop Quest, but announced a focus shift towards smartglasses and AI. So instead of them trying to massively push HorizonOS to gain more partners to counter AndroidXR/visionOS, we might see future Quests iterating mostly along the lines of Qualcomm's SoC/reference HMD designs. Meta already talked about shifting some (component) designs like optical modules to Goertek. They still have no workable strategy for XR productivity or access to Android apps and are mostly stuck in the gaming niche that now shows unexpected signs of trouble, even after we finally passed the 10mn active users base Zuckerberg declared necessary for a self-sustaining platform.

            I have no idea how successful (in unit sales) high end (PC)VR can be today with now much improved hardware. Or how much more the revenue the average PCVR sale generates compared to Quest, and how many developers can rely on that. Or how many of the Gorilla Tag players (about 1/3rd of the Quest active user base some time ago) will either "convert" to regular paying users or drop out. Or if Sony gets their act together with PSVR2, making the development of more demanding VR titles for both PSVR2 and PCVR viable. Or if we will actually see properly designed AAA hybrid games that aren't resource hogs like UEVR.

            We will certainly see more high resolution standalone HMDs, but whether they'll sell in noticeable numbers or instead just open another XR niche remains to be seen. The whole market could shift more towards PSVR2/PCVR with the GPU power to run hires, or towards high end standalone if XR productivity is something people actually want. Or continue to be dominated by cheap standalone gaming HMDs from Meta, which itself could drift towards free to play. There are simply more directions things could go now than "standalone gaming VR".

      • Dragon Marble

        First, we don't know if Quest 3S sold less than Quest 2 in 2023. I know Road2VR did some Amazon sales comparison, but that analysis is deeply flawed, and more or less already proven false by Reality Lab's Q4 revenue.

        Second, if, according to your own argument, Quest 2's retention was low, then there is no harm done by "leaving behind" people who have left on their own. It's hard to imagine people who stick with VR that long would refuse to upgrade after 2 generations when things improve so fast in this field. It's more important to keep the library live than than the hardware itself. Will you still be pissed if you can still play all the Go content on Quest 3?

        Third, Quest 2 is a Covid anomaly. It's better not extrapolate from that period. If you extrapolate from before Covid, you get too hyped. But the opposite is also true. If you extrapolate the aftermath, you can get too pessimistic. A lot of people who were simply not interested in VR or gaming came and went during Covid. We should completely ignore that period in analyzing VR's growth or retention.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          TL;DR: corrected for HMD price, Meta's Q4'24 numbers indicate that they sold (at least) 16% less Quest 3S than Quest 2 during the holiday quarter the year before; if you just ignore/declare all the parts that don't fit your narrative as irrelevant, it becomes less data analysis and more lying with statistics

          – MRL's Q4'24 revenue was marginally higher at USD 1.08bn than the Q4'23 revenue at USD 1.07bn, USD 10mn to be precise, about 1%. But Quest 2 sold for USD 250 in 2023, while Quest 3S sold for USD 300 in 2024, so 20% more. (Oversimplified) assuming that 100% of the revenue was from sales of these two headsets, Meta sold about 3.6mn Quest 3S in 2024 vs 4.28mn Quest 2 in 2023, or about 19% more Quest 2.

          – Quest 2 sold better on Amazon in 2023 than Quest 3S in 2024, and that is still pretty much the only direct data about sales that isn't mixed with other revenue.

          – Of course the quarterly revenue also includes software, accessories and Quest 3, which probably sold more in 2023 simply because it had just been released. But Meta also just told us that they have a sales hit with their Ray-Ban glasses that sold 1mn+ units in 2024 at around USD 330 as the best selling item in Ray-Ban stores. We don't know if they also sell best around Christmas, but given that MRL's total revenue for 2024 was USD 2.146bn (according to Statista), about 16% of all MRL revenue now comes from Ray-Ban smartglasses. So Meta definitely sold less than 3.6mn Quest 3S during Q4'24.

          Given all that, there is not a single data point that would indicate that Quest 3S sold anywhere as many units in 2024 as Quest 2 the year before, it basically only gets worse the more you look at the data.

          And regarding the impact of CoViD-19:

          – As pretty much all gaming technology, Quest 2 benefited from CoViD-19 lockdowns, and even got an extra boost at Christmas as a backup present for the sold out PS5. But we saw a similar Quest sales pattern in the year following Quest 2's launch in 2020-10 as we have seen in every year since: huge sales in Q4, then dropping in the following quarters. Indicating that even during CoViD-19 Quests were mostly bought to give to others, instead of being bought by people for themselves because they were housebound and needed something to do.

          – Most lockdowns started around 2020-03, and in the US most mandatory lockdowns, if there there were any, ended long before Quest 2 released, so people had plenty of time to buy other electronics before, causing shortages of laptops, gaming consoles etc. There never were Quest 2 shortages.

          – No doubt voluntary self-isolation had an impact, but my guess it that the main beneficiary were VR fitness apps, as people avoided gyms as potential sources of infection. This drew a completely different crowd than the gamers Quest usually targets, and this group is now among the most active (in terms of usage hours) with way above average retention. They also pretty much have the least reason to upgrade to a Quest 3/3S, as none of the fitness apps really benefit from either better performance, graphics or lenses, with the smaller Quest 3 form factor probably main reason to switch from a Quest 2.

          You not only ignored the actual data, but also the part of my post about Quest 3S retention probably not being better than Quest 2 due to the changed audience. And again it gets worse, as Quest 2 got both the enthusiasts and the casual users, while Quest 3S gets mostly the less engaged casuals, because many enthusiasts already went for a Quest 3. The idea of dropping Quest 2 due to low retention/users "lagging behind" with upgrading, despite it making up the vast majority of the install base (incl. very persistent VR fitness users) , could horribly backfire if Quest 3S retention turned out to be even lower. Developers will value someone still using a Quest 2 and still buying games way higher than someone who just got a Quest 3S mostly to play the free Gorilla Tag with friends.

          Of course we don't have any data for Quest 3/3S retention yet, not even indirect one like we got with Quest 2 several times, mostly hinting at ~ 40% retention. So far we only have Bosworth's statement about changing user behavior, reports about falling Quest software sales from developers and the existence of Quest 3 targeting/drawing away the enthusiasts from Quest 3S. So we will still have to extrapolate all the data we can somehow get instead of ignoring the parts we don't like. We've had plenty of that for a couple of years with people misinterpreting VR usage data as VR being on an exponential growth path, about to explode anytime soon, and getting very angry when being told that the actual data didn't support this.

          • Dragon Marble

            There are two fundamental problems with your analysis. First, Q4 2023 revenue was driven by Quest 3 sales, not Quest 2. Meta said so during the investor call. They have to be accurate with investors.

            Second, you assume Meta gets all the revenue from the glasses. What about Ray-Ban? They are the one making them.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Meta never said they sold more Quest 3 than Quest 2 in Q4'23. "Driven" can simply mean that the most impactful new factor was sales of the newly released Quest 3, while the Quest 2 numbers were comparable to previous years, so they were just steady. Quest 3 also sold for twice the price as Quest 2, so it would generate the same revenue with half the unit sales, or even less if a significant number of enthusiasts bought the 512GB version for USD 649.

            Road To VR reported 70% Quest 2 vs 30% Quest 3 unit sales on Amazon during 2023-11. This was the first month with Quest 3 available for the whole month, still shortly after it launched in 2023-10, and including Black Friday sales. I currently can't find numbers covering the whole holiday season, but given that Quest 3 sales most likely peaked shortly after launch due to lots of enthusiasts upgrading, and that the sales numbers of Quest as a Christmas present have proven to be rather price sensitive, I'd expect the ratio for December to be even more tilted towards Quest 2.

            The exact amount of Meta revenue from the Ray-Ban glasses is hard to estimate. EssilorLuxottica isn't building the electronics, they just changed the Ray-Ban frame to fit the smart parts from Meta that will most likely again be produced by Goertek, like most other Meta XR hardware. AFAIK Meta again makes basically no money from the glasses, they sell their parts at cost to EssilorLuxottica. The production cost for sunglasses are usually rather low, with the estimates for regular Ray-Bans around USD 30, more with special glasses.

            EssilorLuxottica is a luxury brand with a gross margin (= gross profit/revenue) of 64%, meaning their production costs are mostly negligible, with advertising probably being more expensive. So if these were regular Ray-Bans, USD 330 revenue would be about USD 110 for production, shipping, store, advertising etc., setting an upper limit for the smartglasses part of USD 220, if both Meta and EssilorLuxottica sold at cost. In this case the revenue going to Meta would be USD 220. It is very likely lower, as I seriously doubt that EssilorLuxottica will sell at cost, though we don't know how much Meta having bought 5% of EssilorLuxottica for USD 5bn impacts their willingness. We also don't know if Meta maybe subsidizes for example the advertising, or how many they actually sold, as Zuckerberg only said that it was more than 1mn in 2024.

            Like pretty much everything, the numbers can only be an approximation. Meta will not have sold 3.6mn Quest 3S for a total of USD 1.08bn, but there is no trivial way to guess how many Quest 3 were sold, how many apps, how many accessories. The only known numbers are Q4'24 revenue and (base model) sales price, so the number will be an approximation. USD 330mn revenue from 1mn Ray-Ban smartglasses is another approximation, as the build cost, revenue split, whatever Meta pays for using the name Ray-Ban, actual sales number and average sales price again isn't public.

            It roughly works, because the electronics are certainly the most expensive parts of the smartglasses and are sold by Meta without a profit, so a significant part of the USD 330 will end up as revenue in Meta's quarterly reports. The only ones that have the actual, precise numbers are Meta, and as they have proven very unwilling to publish them, all we get are approximations based on rough numbers that come with a huge margin of error. But trying to just guess the correct numbers instead will make things worse due to the unavoidable bias introduced by every guess. If these are the only numbers we have, then these are the only numbers we can use.

          • Dragon Marble

            Since Ray-Ban Meta glasses are made in EssilorLuxottica factories, it's likely that the manufacture incurs all production cost, take 100% of the $330 as revenue, and then pay Meta a licensing fee. Also remember that the the glasses launched in 2023. It it had any meaningful impact on Reality Lab's revenue, it should've been the Q4 2023 revenue, not a year after launch.

            In all likelihood Q4 2024 revenue is mostly Quest 3 + Quest 3S, and Q4 2023 is mostly Quest 3 + Quest 2. Now consider that Quest 3 launched in 2023, so it must have sold more in 2023 than 2024. This leads to only one logical conclusion: Quest 3S sold more than Quest 2.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            tech_facebook_com/reality-labs/2021/9/ray-ban-and-facebook-introduce-ray-ban-stories-first-generation-smart-glasses/

            These are very clearly Meta smartglasses. EssilorLuxottica only makes "dumb" glasses, and their part in the design was largely making the components Meta designed fit into a plastic frame plus selling the result. They neither have the expertise to create the software or hardware nor the data centers required to run the AI that powers the Meta Ray-Ban smartglasses. Meta is paying EssilorLuxottica for the use of the Ray-Ban brand, not the other way around, and very, very likely is responsible for all of the hard- and software, incl. production. All the future AI compute usage would have to be priced in, but of course it is possible that Meta again swallows that cost.

            And again "likelihood … mostly" is just you guessing to get to the result you want to promote (Quest 3S sold better than Quest 2) without having anything besides your gut feeling to back it up, while contradicting the Amazon sales numbers. Since you keep pulling baseless claims out of nowhere to then declare them as facts ("already proven false by Reality Lab's Q4 revenue" – false; "Quest 2 is a Covid anomaly"- stats say differently; "only one logical conclusion" – nope again), let's apply logic and math again:

            With Quest 2/Quest 3 selling 70:30 in 2023, there are of course numerous scenarios where Quest 3S could have sold more, for example with Quest 3S/Quest 3 selling 100:0 or 90:10 in 2024. Quest 3 selling less in 2023 makes sense, so running the numbers again, and assuming 100% of the revenue is HMD sales, a 75:25 ratio means Quest 3S sold as many as Quest 2. If Meta's smartglasses are 5% of the revenue, it's 22:78, 10% needs 20:80, 15% 17:83. And if we further assume that they also sold a couple of apps, accessories, subscriptions, Beat Saber DLC etc., so that only about 75% of the quarterly revenue comes from Quest sales, the required ratio goes up to 9:91. So Meta would have had to sell 10 Quest 3S for every Quest 3, which would be quite impressive, considering that the year before they only sold 2.33 Quest 2 for every Quest 3 (though this would have to be corrected for app sales etc. too, only with a smaller smartglasses portion). Possible in theory, and impossible to disprove without getting actual sales numbers from Meta. But not very likely, and again, the Amazon sales numbers showed Quest 3S selling worse.

            This leads to only one logical conclusion: Quest 3S sold more than Quest 2.

            You guessing vague trends/numbers and not even naming them is not a reliable source to make estimates, and even less something that could lead to one single logical conclusion. The math isn't hard, and if you want to show that Amazon's sales numbers are misleading, you'll need to offer more than your personal believes and broad claims not supported by any source.

  • eadVrim

    Under $100 better buy a Q1 for PCVR, still good on all indoor VR games, Oled, vibrant color, deep black.
    More than $100 better save money for a Q3S.

  • FrankB

    A large number of casual gamers will only buy headsets to play Beat Sabre. In which case Quest 2 is a fine choice if you can get it cheap.

  • I think it's a fair suggestion. Of course, elaborating things a bit more, it also depends on what you want to do. For instance, Quest 2 is an excellent headset to play Beat Saber or Gorilla Tag, but it is a horrible headset to play Mixed Reality

  • 石雨濛

    Do not buy garbage hardware – that includes Quest 2, Quest 3s, and Quest 3.

    • wooden

      The only reason I read RoadToVR is so that I can scroll down to the comment section and laugh at more of your garbage takes

  • namekuseijin

    terrific headset with deep catalogue of great games, still being released outside a couple notable ones like Batman.

    Asgard's Wrath 2, Iron-Man, Mudrunner, Cities VR, Assassin's Creed Nexus, upcoming Farming Simulator etc all run on Quest 2 fine.