Meta is planning to ship a VR headset in 2024 which the company wants to make as accessible as possible to consumers.

According to a report by The Verge, Meta’s VP of VR, Mark Rabki, told thousands of employees in a memo that it plans to release a consumer VR headset in 2024, codenamed Ventura.

“The goal for this headset is very simple: pack the biggest punch we can at the most attractive price point in the VR consumer market,” Rabki wrote in the memo.

Meta seems to be positioning Ventura as a ‘Quest 3 Lite’ of sorts. In the reported memo, the company announced its upcoming Quest 3 would be targeted at enthusiasts, which is said to be a “bit more money” than the current $400/$500 headset, while also including mixed reality capabilities similar to Quest Pro. The company has publicly confirmed Quest 3 will release at some point this year.

Additionally, the report maintains that any ‘Pro’ level headset will be “way out in the future” after Ventura is released in 2024.

SEE ALSO
Star Wars VR 'Vader Immortal' Trilogy is Getting a Huge Discount, But Still No Quest 3 Upgrade

This means Meta will be selling Quest 3 at the same time it releases Ventura in 2024, and likely within the life span of Quest Pro too, so the company will need to offer all of them at fitting price points as to not muddy the waters.

It’s uncertain where Meta hopes to cut corners with the ostensibly cheaper standalone. One thing the company can do is ship without motion controllers, which would cut down on overall price, although that would stymie consumer access to the back catalogue of VR games. Not all games make use of Quest hand-tracking.

With Ventura, the company could opt to essentially update Quest 2’s hardware with minor modifications, like replacing the Fresnel lenses with pancake optics to slim down the overall profile, and add a faster chipset.

Whatever the case, it seems the company is looking at capturing the low end of the VR market, which would better lock in a new generation of VR users into the Meta ecosystem—something the company needs if it hopes to increase user retention. Offering a cheaper headset could also potentially broaden Meta’s access to emerging markets, somewhere Chinese competitors like Pico Interactive may succeed given the chance.

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.


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 3,500 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Nevets

    Sounds like a step too far to me. Basic and Pro, OK. But intermediate levels, in such an underdeveloped market, smacks of fragmentation. The main goal needs to be mainstream adoption, in order to address both the need for unit sales and the need for attractive software. And mainstream adoption must be underpinned by affordability and a commonly-recognised denominator for developers to target.

    • alxslr

      Intermediate is where the money currently is for a company like Meta. It’s the enthusiasts, those that will buy and use each new headset if it’s clearly better that the headset before and not much more expensive.

      The “Pro” bet is Ok, but for that price it has to be better than QPro. They seem to have realized that.

      The problem is the “basic” bet, wich appears to be aimed to mass adoption. If they’re having problems with retention, I don’t think that problem will go away with a “basic” headset. Even though more people may buy it at first, they still won’t use it after 2 o 3 months.

      • Lucidfeuer

        You don’t fragment your line on such a small market

        • alxslr

          Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly. I’m also saying 3 product lines is too much. They should make a competititve/good Q3 with pankake lenses, Meta optics, Pico’s resolution and a good solution to connect to PCVR. For me that’s what many enthusiats are looking for. Kind of a Pico4, but with Meta optics and the new Snapdragon (and, maybe, local dimming).

          If you ship that there is no reason to make 3 lines. You make that and an enterprise model. Adding a third line is too much fragmentation, as you say.

    • MeowMix

      But intermediate levels, in such an underdeveloped market, smacks of fragmentation.

      Not if done correctly.

      If Quest 3 Lite includes the same SoC as Quest3, but with lighter features to save costs elsewhere, then it could be a great headset for those on a strict budget. As long as the SoC and ram are the same, there will be game parity between the headsets.

      I could see the Lite have a static IPD, cheaper plastic shell, and cheaper controllers (Quest2 controllers?), perhaps even a cheaper LCD panel (72hz only).

      • Nevets

        Perhaps. Those sound like sensible suggestions although I do wonder if some of those compromises might be too much, for example a lower refresh rate is less comfortable for many people. But it all remains to be seen. I do worry that the more mainstream end of the market who don’t want to pay out the big bucks are also those who put it on their heads and don’t use it again, so if the device itself is a bit cheap and nasty or misses out on the best features, then it may not be properly targeted to the mainstream.

      • west

        arent storage is so cheap now that its not even worth mentioning as a cost saving measure? im not talking about the sad reality that companies charging hundreds of dollars for higher storage

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Exactly: want a cheap Quest? get a used Quest1 or 2. there is already a cheap Quest3: it is called the Quest 2. Now anybody developing a game has to consider whether and how it will run on the various Quests on offer a la Windows versus console games. This kind of thing weakens VR a a whole!

  • another juan

    could be great if it uses the same Quest 3 SoC. otherwise, it only would lead to more fragmentation of the market, more work and less incentive for developers.

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    META is an utter Orwellien sh@tshow. Alex Himel, the company’s vice president for AR: “We should be able to run a very good ads business. I think it’s easy to imagine how ads would show up in space when you have AR glasses on. Our ability to track conversions, which is where there has been a lot of focus as a company, should also be close to 100 percent.”

    They’re not even hiding it anymore. How can anyone endorse Zuck’s evil plans?

    • ViRGiN

      did steamvr sales ended or something?
      are you lacking pcvr content? clearly sounds like it.

      • LMAO

        Ignorant troll alert!

    • Anonymous

      Lmao if you want to live in some fantasy world thay can avoid ads you might as well leave civilization and go live in a cave.

      The problem is never having ads itself, it is how ads are done and the problem of them getting intrusive.
      The leaked AR articles say nothing about the latter, other than using eye tracking to understand ad engagement behaviour and this alone is too early to judge anything until they fully explain how they want to do it.

    • NL_VR

      just vote with you wallet

    • Arno van Wingerde

      I fully agree: advertising is evil! but I and many others are not prepared to exchange a $400 Quest2 for a $3000 game PC + VR glasses, base stations and other stuff I’d rather not have cluttering my home. So: if you have some brilliant ideas about developing, manufacturing and distributing huge amounts of cheap VR glasses without advertising I would like to hear those…

      • Lucidfeuer

        false dichotomy dumb dumb

  • gothicvillas

    Sounds like Quest 3 pancake lenses 1000 dollar device and Quest 3 lite non-pancake lenses 500 dollar as advertised

    • Smokey_the_Bear

      Did you read the article?
      It sounds like Quest 3 $700 this year, and $ Quest 3 Lite $400 next year.

      • NL_VR

        $700 sounds way to high, but who knows

  • Chris

    Zuck is almost like Caesar at this point. What are the lessons of VR for Meta? They lose billions of dollars every year on the Quest 2. Barely anyone is buying Quest Pro. Their VR/Metaverse is a ship slowly sinking, yet Zuck still eyes off ridiculously high priced VR headset releases when they can’t make money on the cheap ones?

    • Anonymous

      What? We only know a vague “a bit more” how do you jump to the conclusion that it will already be “ridiculously expensive”?

      • ViRGiN

        this is what valve index ab-users constantly sound like

    • philingreat

      Quest 2 is one of the most successful gaming consoles since according to the amazon top selling charts. Funny is that other companies work on future technologie, it’s called “investing”, when Meta does it, people call it “loosing billions”

  • Xron

    Xbox Series S killed the hype of “Next gen gaming console” for devs… because they had to create games keeping “S” specs in mind…
    If Meta does same with their Vr lineup… they will be …. holding back development of decent games and apps for quite some time.
    Fragmentation will kill devs time as they will have more time spend to make their app/game to run well on a lower specs device.
    If Meta won’t add eye tracking to quest 3, then we won’t see anything close to ps5 powered psvr2 content for ~2/3 years more after quest3 release…

    • ViRGiN

      PCVR with eye tracking isn’t providing anything close to PS5 powered content.
      Nobody needs eye tracking in mass market product just yet, and any TRUE gains thanks to eye tracking have not been demonstrated at all. 30% or whatever in Red Matter 2 in Quest Pro does not mean 30% all across every genre of games.

      • Pablo C

        Regular graphic power of PS5, which is roughly equivalent to a RTX 2080, can be rise to the power of an RTX 3090 with foveated rendering. This tech will soon be a must for every VR device, moreover if it´s portable.

        • ViRGiN

          No, it isn’t. And it’s already 60fps gaming with that

        • NL_VR

          The games that are out now doesnt show any of that RTX2080-3090 power, actually far from it.
          Horizon, Re village and even some less graphically intense games only run at 60 fps with reprojection

          • Pablo C

            There are a few videos showing the PSVR2 on a monitor. Their foccusing point (foveated) show textures that you know could not be rendered on a RTX 2080 PCVR. However, the areas surounding the foccusing point show lower textures and geometry that you would expect a well optimized 2080 could run. It´s clear as water what foveated rendering is yielding.

          • NL_VR

            Foveated rendering isnt anything new.
            i dont know what you mean but a PC with RTX 2080 can easy render that.
            as i said this “PS5 is more powerful than RTX3090” there is no true to that.
            Horizon on a monitor has nothing to do with that

        • Arno van Wingerde

          The principle is nice… but it does not always work and the costs of eye-tracking can as well be used for a more powerful processor – so it is not nearly as clear cut as Linus tech suggests. For instance: people experience more movement blur with the PSVR2, see review on this site … might this be due to PSVR2 not focusing rapidly enough to follow the eye?

    • NL_VR

      Quest uses fixed foveated rendering so eye tracking isnt a must in that regarding performance. eyetracking on psvr2 is nice but its not because of the foveated rendering its because of features in games it can use.

    • MeowMix

      Xbox Series S killed the hype of “Next gen gaming console” for devs… because they had to create games keeping “S” specs in mind…

      Playstation 5 also comes in 2 flavors, but it doesn’t have any impact on the games. As long as Quest3 and Quest 3 Lite have the same SoC and ram, they can save in other areas. People are overthinking this, it’s pretty simple.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        I hope you’re right… and it just cheaper plastic, lesser storage etc. But everything else, e.g. leaving out the pass through cameras will prevent MR games.

  • I hope they make a good strategy for this, otherwise with three headsets sold at the same time, they risk the Pimax effect

  • illest

    A Quest 3 Lite would make sense at the end of 2024 because I’m assuming they’d knock down the Quest 2 price again and this ‘Lite’ headset would sit in between the Quest 2 & Quest 3 at $400.

  • MOT

    We know where this is going.

    Quest 1 cant play some quest 2 games.

    Quest 3 is twice as powerful as Quest 2.

    Likelihood is it wont be long before many quest 3 games wont run on quest 2.

    There are going to be a lot of very unhappy quest 2 owners.

    But dont panic. You can always buy quest 4 in a year or two.

    Just what exactly is Meta’s strategy here?

    The rift S wasnt supported with any software from Meta, the GO and Quest 1 are dead. It looks like the quest 2 will follow the same path.

    • Guest

      Burn the bridges behind you…

      • Arno van Wingerde

        … is OK if you are going forward!

    • NL_VR

      Yes if it cant keep up it will lose support.
      Standalone VR is not the same as a console.
      And Rift s, Quest 1 still works as VR headsets it’s not like they stop working.

      • Mike

        in some ways i prefer my rift s to my psvr2 namely clarity is better on rift s even with lower resolution.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Like you said: other HW cannot play many newer games. You think that is a good argument to stop innovation? Look at the PSVR1: it is plainly ridiculous nowadays, simply because the technology is 7 years behind. As long as VR HW is developing at these speed we are going to see those developments. I assume the Quest2 will still be able to play all PCVR games in the future as well, so the Rift has no advantage there. Running games on the VR set itself is a major challenge, I would rather have the Quest3 strong enough to play SkyRim, than have it handicapped to keep the Quest2 able to play the same games!

  • Pablo C

    Regular graphic power of PS5, which is roughly equivalent to a RTX 2080, can be rise to the power of a RTX 3090 with foveated rendering. Missing this tech in their 3rd version of their portable device will soon make Meta´s Quest 3 look obsolete. I can only imagine how bad will be the “lite” version of it.

    • NL_VR

      Sorry but your comment only proofs ignorance in many levels.

      • Pablo C

        How easy is to use your brain the way you do: you “know you are right”, just don´t have the words to prove it.

        • NL_VR

          its your illusion that PS5 is more powerful than 3090 etc what you are writing all over.

          no its not, as i said in another thread. PSVR2 run many games in 60FPS,, guess what, you dont have to do that on PC :P

          • Pablo C

            Yeah, just, use google and then we talk. Now it´s full of reports that claim this 3090 thing. I guess everybody is wrong except you?

          • Mike

            it’s from one source

          • Pablo C

            I couldn´t post the links here, but I found 4 sources, which is much better than nothing.

          • NL_VR

            Then why doesnt it show up in the games?
            3090 perform alot better on Re village VR than Re village on psvr2.
            More efficiency doesnt mean more powerfull

          • Pablo C

            Yeah, talking about raw power would be idiotic, when what matters are FPS, which as tested, are similar to that of a 3090 when using foveated rendering (as I said in my first post).

          • NL_VR

            I dont know what you talk about.
            I give you an easy example.
            Re village, Horizon are 60 fps.
            If it was powerfull as 3090 psvr2 games shouldnt need to be run in 60fps

          • Pablo C

            There is no way that game could run on a PC with 3090 at 90 FPS. No way. At least, my 4070ti can barely handle Alyx at 90 fps.

          • Mike

            prove it.

          • NL_VR

            i dont have to prove anything, its like common sense.

          • Mike

            it depends on the game. i have a 2080 and 60 is about all i can hope for in even simpler games.

          • NL_VR

            All i can say you doing it wrong or something is seriously wrong with your computer.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Except you can’t just take your PSVR2 to another room/house as easily, and although better graphics is great, gameplay is still what counts. But I do think the Quest 3 won’t have such a big increase in GPU performance compared to the Q2 so it will still have lesser graphics as PCVR, but then again, the PCVR GPU alone is about twice the price of a Q2.

      • Pablo C

        Most people play in just one room. People get the Quest because of its price. Now the PSVR2 costs just $150 more than the Quest 2 and a PS5 cost a third of a PC with a RTX 3090. I only play PC, but for anyone better used to consoles than myself, this is a no brainer choice.

        • ViRGiN

          You only play on PC cause you’ve been brainwashed into thinking it’s the high end.

          • Pablo C

            Not at all: I play videogames from a time consoles did not exist or were crap. Then I got use to the mouse for FPS, which of course it´s much better than a gamepad. VR is different bc controllers are the same for consoles: only now I could considering switching and it´d only be for VR.

          • Mike

            half-life Alex. where’s your hi end option.

        • Arno van Wingerde

          Well I have a VR room for moving in, but seated games, I simply play in the living room. If I want a huge space, I can play in the garden… You are used to PCVR and therefore need to be close to the PC (wired or not) – for you it is logical to play in one room. PC flat gamers also play in one room … but looks what happens when they play a simple game on their phone! I also take my Quest2 with me to show to other people and I certainly wouldn’t do that with a PCVR setup!

          • Pablo C

            Yeah, you are right if you play Quest, not PC linked. Just, bc I´m used to PC, I find the Quest graphics too subpar for anything, except for those games that require a lot of movemente: there the Quest shines.

      • Mike

        it all counts. gameplay with crappy graphics still sucks. I want both. Quest 2 doesn’t give me both so I use a wired headset.

      • Mradr

        Thats not true at all – PC hardware scales – what you are looking at are DGPUs – there are stuff like IGPUs that even consoles are pretty much using. Cost less and draw way less power. When making hardware – there are a few schools of thought. Mobile hardware is no different as well. As to say you can get more GPU resources if we needed them – there isnt really a limit there – problem just comes down to battery and cooling.

        With that said – that isnt true either – as to say – graphical improvements are the result of having more resources. Game play does matter the most – but its also stuck in the race of needing more resources as well. If you don’t have the hardware resources – you can’t make better longer funner games either. Graphics sells because it shows the system has the resources for anything like that. I think FF games break your logic because they’re all logical and long story base games that do require strong hardware resources and they sell on consoles and is consider one of the bigger AAA titles in the gaming space.

        VR has the issue of taking almost double the resources – so its not just behind Console/PC/flat screen gaming in graphics – its 2x behind flat screen gaming. Thats actually a problem, let alone the resources required for other specs people want such as a higher FOV in the future or higher res screens to “fix” SDE.

  • They should’ve listened to JC – he told them so.

  • Trekkie

    The future is streamed XR from edge computing devices via 5G. The actual device and its chipset will gecome irrelevant. It just becomes a “viewer”.

    For the time being there is no point in cramming all that hardware into the headset. A wired puck will suffice.

  • Pablo C

    Why you always get to the Fanboy´s answer…. it´s just like Virgin at the other side…. I tried though

    • NL_VR

      im not giving you the fanboy answer. i just commented on you faulty statements and you cant accept it.
      But im not here to say no to you, enjoy your PSVR2 thats whats matter right? If you dont enjoy it or someone enjoys something else, dont get mad over the internet for it.

      • Pablo C

        Once in a while, I wrongly think, that although I play PC, I could interchange thoughts about other platforms. Then Virgin immediatly adds hate to PC and NL_VR immediatly adds it to PS5, unable to reason, untechnicaly, unreferenced, just thinking in absolutes. I guess I´m just too old and they are just too young.

        • NL_VR

          No its not true.
          FYI i play on PCVR, PSVR2 & Quest. i dont add hate on one plattform, you just couldnt accept i was pointing out your ignorance.
          i end this discuss with you it will go nowere, i hope you find happiness in your PSVR2.

  • Gim Iu

    I think it’ll be more like Quest 2 Lite to replace the Quest 2 now, than a Quest 3 lite. It’d make more sense. Like Playstation lite to Playstation 2