Quest Pro is here and brings with it some welcomed hardware improvements but a dubious value proposition that’s highly dependent on someone else making the right apps.

There’s two ways to look at Quest Pro:

  • A better and more expensive Quest 2
  • A headset with new features that wants to transform the way you work

The former is pretty straightforward. If you plan on gaming just like you do on Quest 2, Quest Pro is in most ways the superior device. But when you factor in the $1,500 pricetag, there’s just no way the improvements are worth the cost of admission. And that’s fine, Meta really isn’t selling Quest Pro as a Quest 2 upgrade.

Instead the company is marketing some vague value proposition that Quest Pro will ‘transform the way you work’. Officially the company claims that Quest Pro is made for “builders, designers, and inventors. Architects, product designers, prototypers, game developers, engineers, and researchers have historically designed 3D products and experiences on 2D screens. We are giving these builders the ability to visualize their creations in 3D while getting a sense of scale and proportion in context to the environment.”

In theory that makes a lot of sense. In practice, the whole premise is undermined by a host of usability issues and a lack of high quality first-party software that delivers clear value. Meta seems to be banking entirely on someone else building the headset’s core enterprise functionality, at launch making Quest Pro feel like an experiment more than a product.

Finding the Value Proposition

Photo by Road to VR

So there seems to be two core ways that Meta expects customers to get value from this $1,500 headset. The first is by using it as a portable workspace, either by tapping into the inbuilt browser or using some sort of virtual desktop software. The second is that maybe you get lucky and somebody builds a third-party ‘killer app’ for your specific workflow.

Curiously, neither of these use-cases really demand the hardware that Quest Pro brings to the table. While some apps are enhanced by what Quest Pro does uniquely (better passthrough and expression tracking), I’ve yet to see an app that really uses them in a way that’s indispensable, making much of the headset feel like new hardware in search of a problem to solve rather than an answer to a critical need.

Usability Debt Rises to the Surface

The thing is, if you look at Quest 2 as a VR game console, it’s a pretty attractive product because it does one thing quite well: it plays VR games. And when you’re using it to play games, many of the headset’s serious usability issues are masked because generally you’re launching into a single app and then spending almost your entire session inside of it.

Productivity, on the other hand, generally means jumping between lots of different applications and workflows… something that Quest 2 (and Quest Pro, with its identical interface) is really bad at.

The issues there start at a fundamental level with the Quest interface. Though it began as mere menu, over time Meta has attempted to morph it into a sort of operating system interface. The result? A truly clunky nightmare of usability issues.

And a feeling of productivity isn’t lost just because the system interface is problematic and because jumping between apps is slow, but also because the entire architecture of the platform treats every app as its own siloed experience. So jumping from one app to another to try to get stuff done means dealing with a mess of different interfaces, different avatars, different friends/invite systems, different capabilities etc.

First-party Problems

Image courtesy Facebook

Meta has sorta-kinda attempted to fix this with Horizon Workrooms, a single app that functions as both your personal office (via remote work on your PC or Mac) and a place where you meet immersively with colleagues. In theory that sounds great, but there’s a few key problems.

For one, Workrooms doesn’t even come pre-installed. You could easily end up with a Quest Pro and literally never know that what is ostensibly supposed to be core functionality (remote PC and immersive meetings) is actually hiding in some app you have to find and download from the store.

SEE ALSO
Meta Releases Connect 2022 Schedule, Featuring Zuckerberg Keynote, John Carmack Talk & Dev Sessions

And what’s more… Workrooms just doesn’t come close to reaching the ease-of-use it needs to make people actually prefer to use it over other options that do not involve being in a headset. Much like the Quest system interface, Workrooms is wildly clunky and really quite unintuitive.

I’ve been professionally working in the VR space for more than a decade now, and while I’m able to figure it out, I can only imagine an employee (with minimal or no VR experience) getting a Quest Pro headset and trying to figure out how to use Workrooms.

I can already hear the poor support person trying to help out on the other end of a call:

Did you click the button on the bottom bar? No, the other bottom bar. You have to close the first bottom bar with the right button on your controller. You aren’t using the controllers? Ok pinch your fingers together then move your fingers down over the Oculus logo—I mean Quest logo—while you’re still pinching then let go of your pinch. Did the first bar close? Ok now on the other bar you see in front of you, click the button with the computer icon. You can’t see your pointer? Try moving your hands closer to the little screen there. No not too close, you can’t just tap the button with your finger, you have to pinch to select. Ok now click that computer icon. Do you see anything in the list? No? Ok make sure you launched the remote software on your computer. Yes, take off your headset and go to the website and download that and install it. Then put your headset back on and click that computer icon again.

Everything Quest Pro wants to accomplish makes sense; the execution is just seriously lacking for any ‘professional’ who expects to use the device for general productivity work. The intended use cases just aren’t sufficiently supported by high-quality first-party apps and capabilities.

Third-party to the Rescue (Hopefully)

Photo by Road to VR

A lack of high-quality first-party productivity features leaves the headset entirely dependent on third parties to pick up the slack… something Meta seems to be seriously praying for.

To that end, the one place that Quest Pro could prove truly useful is if there’s a single third-party app out there that directly benefits your workflow. And maybe there is… maybe you do 3D design and would really benefit from using an app like Gravity Sketch to brainstorm and sketch out models and ideas. Maybe you’re an architect and would really benefit from using an app like Resolve to visualize large 3D models for construction projects.

But this is the kicker… Quest 2 can run those apps effectively just as well as Quest Pro. So, what is Quest Pro bringing to the table?

How about the headset’s new capabilities? Better quality passthrough AR and expression tracking are nice to have… but today Meta doesn’t have an out-of-the-box killer app for them—either first or third-party. So why not just get a Quest 2?

In its present state, using Quest Pro for the things Meta is marketing feels a bit like trying to use your Xbox as a productivity PC. Like… yes, you actually can browse the web on an Xbox, but an Xbox is way better at playing games than browsing the web. And right now Quest Pro is better at playing games than anything else.

Mixed Reality Marketing

Image courtesy Meta

Perhaps Quest Pro’s most marketed feature—mixed reality—is still very undercooked. You can manually outline your room to make the headset aware of what’s around you, allowing some apps to interact with those (exclusively rectangular) surfaces that you’ve told it about. But it’s a tedious process which currently provides minimal benefits. And like much else of the system-level Quest functionality, it’s got tons of usability issues; things as obvious as the instruction window blocking your view as you try to draw outlines.

But let’s say you don’t care about the headset being aware of the shape of the room around you. Passthrough still could have another huge benefit: allowing you to easily interact with the outside world without taking off your headset. Things like checking your phone or reading from a sheet of paper is the kind of practical usage you’d want for that, but Quest Pro falls short with not enough resolution and still fairly ‘bumpy’ depth estimation for near-field objects.

SEE ALSO
Quest Pro Revealed with Snapdragon XR2+, Face-tracking, & More; Ships October 25th for $1,500

Even for just wanting a feeling of not being fully immersed by leaving the passthrough background turned on while you work is not quite fully there yet. After using Quest Pro as a browser-based workstation with keyboard and mouse for at least an hour, I got slightly dizzy and opted to turn off passthrough.

It’s Not All Bad, Just Expensive

Well, there are a few reasons you might actually want Quest Pro today. The form-factor is a little nicer, though I wouldn’t go as far as calling it obviously more comfortable (unless you’re measuring by the terrible soft strap that comes included with Quest 2 out of the box). The benefit in clarity, thanks to the new lenses, is definitely a noticeable improvement, but you’re ultimately seeing the same number of pixels… but sharper. The Touch Pro controllers are probably the clearest single win from the headset… but they’re also compatible with Quest 2.

Does any of that justify paying $1,100 more than a Quest 2? Doesn’t look like it to me.

Continue on Page 2: Getting Technical »

1
2

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. See here for more information.


  • Kevin Brook

    Having bought one two days ago I’m not really understanding the price complaints. It’s easily worth the money imo. I’m using this primarily for PCVR with the official USB-C link cable, running at 5408 x 2736. This is my seventh VR headset and is far and away the best PCVR headset I’ve ever used and it’s not even close.

    I paid only one hundred pounds less for a Vive Pro 2 with the full base station and Index controllers and the Quest Pro is so much better it’s hard to believe it’s not twice the price.

    I have been using the Reverb G2 for the last year, primarily for Microsoft Flight Simulator and now I’ve just boxed it up and given it to my brother.

    The clarity in this headset for PCVR is insane, you have full edge to edge clarity, no glare or godrays at all, a much larger FOV, and the best controllers yet created.

    The Index is still selling for over £900, the Vive Pro 2 and Pimax 8KX full kits around £1400 and it’s £2700 for a Varjo Aero with controllers and base stations.

    The Quest Pro is fantastic value for money compared to those, with the best lenses so far, the best controllers, imo the best design and comfort, it’s incredible.

    Yes it’s a high end device but saying it’s not worth £1500 doesn’t make sense to me. Compared to every other premiums PCVR headset this is incredible and fantastic value.

    • Sumiter

      100% agree. I know people are price sensitive and that’s ok. The Q2 is still an amazing device in itself and if you are price sensitive get that or stay with that until next year with the Q3.

      Personally I can say after only spending maybe 3-4 hrs in the Quest Pro I cannot go back. Not only is it more comfortable but once you get the clarity and extra FOV you cannot go back. I am really excited to try it with a full light blocker.

      Just like any thing Meta this headset will not be the same headset in 3 months that it is today. Meta software and AI improvements are an industry standard that others have failed on so far.

      • Kevin Brook

        People seem set on hating Meta and insisting this is a terrible, non game focused headset, but anyone who is actually using it for PCVR with 3090s is reporting how absolutely amazing it is.
        I’ve had a CV1, Rift S, Quest 1 & 2, Vive Pro 2 and Reverb G2, and this feels like I’ve moved into the future, truly next generational leap.
        It cost me £1250 for a Quest 2 and Reverb G2 that combined still only have half the functionality of this, and this is so much better than both of them its insane. If this was any other manufacturer people would be saying this is a steal at £1499.

        • wowgivemeabreak

          No they would not be saying it is a steal at that price but you keep pushing your narrative along with trying to gaslight that this thing is so next-gen and such a huge leap.

          Going to be funny when the Q3 comes out possibly within the next 8 months and ,any of the people that bought this will be complaining then since the Q3 will almost surely have the same lenses, the same or better display, higher resolution, next gen XR2 SoC, and all for 1/3rd the price of this.

          Listen, I can easily afford this headset but there is no way I would ever buy it because there is no way I see the value in it, especially knowing a Q3 is coming out next year. And yes, value does factor in for some of us with money. The people you see that don’t give a rip about value and just buy anything because they have cash to do so are the type of people you see like retired athletes who are broke after 5 years from retiring despite making many millions of dollars.

          • Kevin Brook

            Waiting isn’t a bad idea in all honesty. As much as I love this for PCVR its standalone specs suffer due to the XR2 gen 1 chip still being used. The resolution is clearly a consequence of this chip, as I assume is the grainy passthrough. Criticisms of those factors are quite legitimate.

            I expect Meta are just putting this out as a proof of concept and, much like they did with the Quest 1, as soon as the next XR2 gen 2 chip releases they will make a Quest Pro 2 with the new chip, higher resolution and better passthrough.

            My guess is that might only be 12 – 18 months away. Sensibly speaking, that would be the one to get, but I’m absolutely delighted with this and I will enjoy the heck out of it for the next 12 months and get my money’s worth.

            If they do release a Quest Pro 2 in a year I’ll grab it in a heartbeat.

          • Aldus_

            it was the grainy pass through that actually shocked me a little. I was expecting more, and was also one of the reasons I sent it back.
            I will wait to see what else comes up next year, as although I can afford the quest pro, it also felt like I was being ripped off. And nobody likes that feeling.

          • michael b

            Q3 won’t have eye tracking, so no dynamic foveated rendering. It also doesn’t have face tracking, and the battery’s now back in the front of the headset, meaning it’ll be heavy on the face again. And with the extra hardware, it’ll be heavier than the Q2. And it’ll be the soft strap, so you’ll need a 3rd party strap for more comfort. It won’t be nearly as good as the Pro.

            The Pro’s $1500 is actually quite reasonable for what you’re getting. Extra cameras and sensors are expensive, and the controllers are $300 on their own. It might be too expensive for you, but not everyone can afford quality. I’d love a Porche, but there’s no way I’ll ever be able to afford it.

          • silvaring

            You’re also getting your data harvested by multiple third parties, and coughing up the bill for the whole operation not only by paying thousands of dollars for the hardware, but willingly giving them your eye tracking data for free. They should be buying YOU the headset for the amount of telemetry they’re gonna be getting.

          • michael b

            You no longer need a Facebook account, and a Meta account doesn’t require a real name. And now they even have Quest store gift certificates, so there’s no way they can track you. As for tracking your eye tracking… who cares? It’s not under your real name, and unless you have something to hide, then it’s a moot point. As for coughing up the bill… they’re already subsidizing the regular Quest by a fair amount, you can’t expect them to give it all away for free. Oculus/Facebook/Meta are the one’s driving VR advancement right now, using their own pocketbook to do it. A company like ByteDance then takes that technology for their Pico… for free. That’s how they can afford to subsidize even their upcoming Pro headset. Does that make Meta the bad guy for not giving a discount on the Quest Pro? And as for data collection… ByteDance/TikTok data mines just as much as Meta, and shares that data with other parties as well, including the Chinese government. I think I’d trust Meta over ByteDance. And as for paying ‘thousands’… yeah, it less than 2 thousand, so it’s not ‘thousands’. The hardware isn’t cheap. Look at the Vive Focus or the Vive Pro Eye. The Focus is $1500, and the Pro Eye is $1400, requiring a gaming pc. $1500 for eye tracking, face tracking, full colour passthrough, AR capabilities, 12GBs of RAM, and controllers that track themselves with their own Snapdragon chips and 3 cameras each, as well as built-in batteries, isn’t that bad. Especially when you factor in the extra cost the global chip shortage added to virtually every device requiring some kind of CPU, GPU or RAM. It all adds up. I do have to laugh at all the Pico lovers who paid to get their headsets imported though… their warranty is now no longer valid. Warranties are written for each country/region separately, and are not valid in another country. They’d better hope they don’t need to RMA their headsets.

          • NL_VR

            You lost me when you started to defend it like “Quest 3 won’t be as good”
            How do you know that Queat 3 won’t have eye tracking for example?

          • michael b

            Not sure what happened to my comment… think it got flagged for linking an article, even though it was this site I linked.

            The CAD files have already been leaked by SadleyItsBradley on YouTube, and already covered by this site back on September 29th. Bradley’s sources have been pretty good so far, as he leaked the specs of the Quest Pro ahead of time, including the same type of CAD files. He was right on literally everything for the Pro, including the price. The CADs for the Quest 3 didn’t have eye tracking cameras, or face tracking cameras, and it had the original Quest soft strap, meaning the battery’s back in front again, making it heavy on the face again. Eye tracking’s not cheap… you’re not going to find it in a consumer version Quest, which Meta’s heavily subsidizing. The bill of materials on the Pro alone are $800.

          • NL_VR

            Yes i follow Brad on youtube.
            Yes leaks of Cambria wasnt 100% of final Product.
            His leaks showed depth sensor which was removed.
            So that means his cad images represented an earlier version. Which can be the same with the Quest 3 cad images.

          • michael b

            LoL. He was wrong about battery sizes, rotated screens, a 16MP ‘single color’ camera, 1800×1920 ‘rendered’ per eye, and the depth sensor was removed at the very end… because Meta realized it could see through clothes. Pretty much everything else was right on target. None of that would suggest that missing eye trackers or face tracking cameras will somehow show up in the final version. The regular Quest is the budget headset… there’s no way in hell it’ll have eye tracking and face tracking. Get real.

          • NL_VR

            Why this language now, did i offend you or something? You dont know more than anyone else and just have to wait and se.
            I won’t continue this discussion.
            Get real, lol and whatever

          • michael b

            What language??? All I said was it’s a budget headset, and that the CAD files already leaked didn’t show either eye tracking or face tracking cameras onboard. There’s always a ‘chance’, but then they’d have to completely redesign the entire device. Removing something isn’t the same as adding something. That requires a whole new PCB, moving things around. If they wanted to subsidize the headset with extremely expensive hardware, then they would have already had them in the original CADs. You can dream all you want… it’s not going to happen. They said ‘some’ of the features from the Quest Pro will be in the Quest 3… not ‘all’ the features. So go ahead… run away, run away.

          • kraeuterbutter

            if the pro controllers are in the package, i doubt that we will see anything on price we are now used from the quest2

            people should realize, that the quest2 literally a too cheap of a headset
            for all the features – xr2, handtracking, pcvr, … i should have been costing around 599,- something like the Reverb G2
            so: if there is a quest3 with pro controllers, the same pancake lenses from the quest Pro, the same displays (?) – i highly doubt that we will see a price under 500,- more likey a pricerange around 800 or more

        • kraeuterbutter

          how can the quest pro not be a gaming-headset as well ?
          when you setup your quest pro and then go into the store:
          99% of the content in the store are: GAMES GAMES GAMES!
          so why is it not for gamers ?
          because it has the best gaming- controllers out there?
          because it has maybe the best lenses with best E2EC out there?
          because it has the strongest mobile prozessor in any standalone Headset so far?
          because it has better colors than any other standalone headset so far?
          because it offers highest bitrate on wifi of any standalone headset so far?
          because it has biggest compared to all other non-meta-headsets biggest gaming store?
          because its cheaper than such gaming headsets like:
          Pimax 8kx, Varjo Aero, HTC Vive Pro with wireless kit

          so.. why is it not for gamers ?

        • MosBen

          I think that the important thing to keep in mind is that any time someone says that something is a bad deal or not worth the money there’s an implied “for most people” tagged on at the end. Someone who has purchased 7 VR HMDs and doesn’t mind dropping over a thousand dollars for a Quest Pro to use with their high end gaming system clearly isn’t going to weigh the pros and cons of the HMD the same way that someone who bought the Quest 2 because they were curious about VR. The price of the Quest Pro is very high for lots of people, but it’s basically nothing to a millionaire (not saying that you are a millionaire).

          For most people, the upgrades in the Quest Pro simply aren’t worth the tripling of the price over the Quest 2, especially since we basically know that in about a year we’ll get a Quest 3 that will likely remain in the same $400 price area as the Quest 2 and which will likely incorporate most or all of the new features of the Quest Pro, especially things like the new lenses and controllers which seem to be the biggest improvements.

    • Jan Ciger

      You are completely missing the point of what he was trying to say. Sure, the headset is good. But is it $1500 good compared to Quest 2?

      It isn’t, because while you get plenty of the hardware, it is held back by poor/nonexistent software support. If you have the money to spend and the software is sufficient for your needs (i.e. playing games – which means you are **not** the target group for this device at all!), by all means, buy and use it. It is certainly a good product.

      But it isn’t really worth 3x the price compared to Quest 2 for most people because the value just isn’t there. Especially not for the people this is actually being marketed towards – professionals and companies wanting to deploy VR for professional use. Not consumers/gamers playing Flight Simulator with too much money to spend.

      And are you seriously comparing Quest Pro with Varjo?

      • Kevin Brook

        No, you are missing the point. Yes, this is a great standalone headset like the Quest, but it is also an excelllent PCVR headset as well as offering a host of stunning new features.

        As regards the Aero, yes it’s a much better all around headset than the Varjo Aero. It’s much better than any other current PCVR headset. The Aero has fantastic resolution, but it is inferior to the Quest Pro in every single other area.

        I asked David Heaney from Upload VR how the pancake lenses on the Pro compare to the Aero and he said the Quest Pro lenses literally blow the Aero lenses away. I’ve also seen comments on Reddit with Areo users saying the Pro’s optics are much better.

        Aside from the resolution what about the Aero do you think is better?

        • robomartion

          I agree with you. For PC gaming, when compared with the Varjo Aero the Quest Pro is reasonable value. You get a better all round experience – at the expense of going from 2800 to 2000px per eye and its $500 cheaper and you also get state of the art controllers. But what about the PSVR 2 for $549? Or other Micro OLED headsets like the Arpara 5K or Shiftall MeganeX or Pimax Crystal/12K on the horizon? Thats where things start to become less clear. Pun not intended. I think all in all this argument points more to the Varjo Aero also being overpriced and a year old product, than the Quest Pro being particularly groundbreaking or good value for money. In my opinion the Quest Pro could easily be branded as a Quest 3 and be priced at $799 for the base model. Its indeed a sleeper headset for PC VR, however there is very little in it that makes it an enterprise headset. It improves on some very key failings of the Quest 2 (contrast, sweet spot and god rays) and turns it into a more well-rounded product. Its worth $1500 if your only comparison is the Aero. Bring the PSVR2 into the equation and its not so good value any more.

          • Lman146

            however there is very little in it that makes it an enterprise headset

            Welcome to “Enterprise” products… I remember from my 5 year stint in IT sales that often the “Enterprise” products carry a higher price tag, even if the specs are roughly the same. When you consider that some people are already working in Quest 2 devices, the Pro is worth it as an upgrade for the improved text clarity (and overall clarity) alone. Add in the face/eye tracking concept for meetings, and I can see how they are positioning this for enterprise. With that said, they have also said that this device is for VR enthusiasts, and for those of us that fall in that category, I think it is worth shelling out a little extra.

            The Quest 2 target market is different from PCVR gamers, many of which were already into VR before Quest 2 made it affordable. For those people, it’s well worth it compared to the other options on the market, at least from what I can tell and from talking to people who own one. I’m probably going to get one myself, just waiting a bit to see some kinks ironed out, both in the software and 3rd party hardware departments.

      • guest

        Then where do the Micro soft dicks fit in? Embrace, extend and existinguish?

      • Dave

        “And are you seriously comparing Quest Pro with Varjo?”- You can when it’s seriously less expensive. Even the cheaper Aero costs twice as much when adding steam lighthouses and controllers.

      • Dave

        “It isn’t, because while you get plenty of the hardware, it is held back by poor/nonexistent software support.”

        Very true! These points though are just proving this article to be correct. I.e. presently the Quest Pro is a better value proposition as a VR games headset than a enterprise headset for business. But the hardware is compelling enough to suggest this could still change with better software and that’s bulk of the issues the author has.

        I’ll leave you with this thought from Pico 4 Enterprise. Do you know how many software applications Pico have created which makes use of the face and eye tracking – I.e. the new features added to the Pico 4 Enterprise over the Pico 4…

        None. zip, nada, nichts – not one application exists which makes use of these additional features. So that’s 400 pounds for no additional value what’s so ever. Makes the Quest Pro seem pretty reasonable!

        • Mark

          “So that’s 400 pounds for no additional value what’s so ever. Makes the Quest Pro seem pretty reasonable!”

          That is a non-sequiter and a strawman argument.

        • Lman146

          I don’t understand where people are coming from with the “poor/nonexistent” software support idea. Meta has issued steady and consistent updates since day 1 for the Quest 2, and it has substantially improved for 2 years. I have no reason to believe this device won’t be supported.

          • Dave

            Yeah but this isn’t meant as software patch cycle, it’s to show that the current headset doesn’t have much in the way of software to support it’s new features which is not a point that is even contested by any reviewer I’ve come across. We know Meta will get there but there are two problems I see. One is the shelf life of this particular device and the second is the current usability with the software available. Together these more or less make the headset redundant if you consider the fact that they could very well produce a Quest Pro 2 very quickly once the new XR2 Gen2 chipset becomes available like what happned with the Quest 2 so that makes this headset is a very difficult position and applicable to Prosumers and Developers only which is why many are calling this a devkit.

    • ViRGiN

      It hurt especially Europeans, as it’s not $1500 but 1800 euros.
      That’s over 5 Quests 2 before price going up, or 4 Quests 2 after price hike.
      It’s almost twice as much as two full sets of valve index.

      The existence of Quest 1/2 pricing makes it a “much more expensive looking”, but when you consider valve index that was never high end, is over 3 years old today, and is still sold for full price, $1500 isn’t a whole lot for the highest end headset from company who has proven itself year over year with dedication to VR.

      • kraeuterbutter

        yes.. they sold the Quest1 and 2 at such low price (halve the price any other good headset did cost..
        compare it to: Valve Index, REverb G2, Pimax, all Vive Headsets, …
        now our Price-compass is a little bit off..

        the Quest2 – even when sold at 799,- at release – would have been also a good value for the price
        and than the now 1500,- would not look that much “over the top”
        (which it is not, considering what other good headsets costs:
        Pimax 8kx -> over 2000,- full set
        Varjo Aero -> around 3000,- full set
        Vive Cosmos mit WLan modul -> 1500 (and bad experience)
        Vive Pro 2 with Wlan MOdul -> over 2000 (and bad experience)
        and all of them: no battery, no XR2

    • Alexander Sears

      The Vive Focus 3 @ $1300 is the closest competitor to this it appears.

      • Kevin Brook

        Yes, and I believe that is without the additional eye and face tracking modules. I’ve not used the Vive Focus 3 but I did buy a Vive Pro 2 which uses the same lenses and displays so should be visually the same. The Quest Pro is an order of magnitude better than the Vive Pro 2.

        It’s like looking at headsets 5 years apart in technology. That’s the point I was making above, the Pro is a super premium PCVR headset AND a standalone headset, AND introduces mixed reality and a host of new features.

        I actually think it’s terrific value for money relative to what else is out there.

        About 4 Oculus Quest 2s seems a fair price.

      • disqus_nUte0XSviO

        I actually had a vive focus 3 and the lenses are so bad that no, it’s not at all a competitor. I went right back to the quest 2 and returned the focus as the quest 2 actually looked better. Now the pico 4 is a competitor and I’ve switched to using that as it has most of the benefits of the quest pro but at a fraction of the cost ($400)

    • disqus_nUte0XSviO

      It’s true that it’s not a terrible price for a high end headset but I think what most high end headset buyers are complaining about is that there’s not enough high end features to support that price. Look at the $400 pico 4…it has higher resolution, similar clear pancake lenses, and similar color passthrough…for nearly 1/4 of the price. There’s also the matter of there not being any high bitrate option for pcvr so in many instances other headsets with lower specs end up working better for particular games. Right now I’m really happy with the upgrade my pico 4 gave me over the quest 2 for wireless pcvr and can’t see spending that kind of money for perhaps better blacks and colors.

      • silvaring

        And the Pico doesn’t have eye tracking either, so no funny business with highly personalized data tracking.

      • kraeuterbutter

        the pico4 lenses are about 60% clear at E2EC… than they get blury..
        of course: still MUCH MUCH Better than any fresnel-lensed headset we saw sofar
        way better than the Quest2
        but: the Quest Pro is said to have even better lenses
        better treatment to reduce glare (the pico4 has some glare.. not so bad as index, by far not so bad, but there is glare
        and you see ghost-images at high-contrast-situations (For example: i can see 6 ghost-controllers when in an dark background)
        the quest pro is said to make this better.. also some kind of glare, but much less than on the pico4
        i love the big field of view of my pico4
        its comparable to my index
        (why so big? i use my Pico4 with Halostrap design, without face gasket, so my eyes can come much closer to the lenses.. .fov improves a lot by this
        as said: nearly comparable to the index !
        so i use it liek the Quest Pro, no light-shielding
        but the pico4 is considerable lighter than the Quest Pro
        infact: the pico4 is the lightest standalone-headset on the market, the Quest pro the heaviest..
        so with my mod: the pico4 is BY FAR the most comfortable headset i ever owned..
        you realy can forget that you have it on your head, never experience that with any other headset sofar

    • Ryan Thomas

      Same. I own several headsets as well… and after playing with the pro for the past couple days I won’t be going back either. A friend of mine was considering getting the Index & I told him to spend the extra money and get the Pro — it’s worth it. The thing is awesome for PC VR.

      • kraeuterbutter

        how does it work with pc-VR?
        i have now a pico (Also pancake lenses)
        and the pico4 needs MUCH more power from the PC than my index or my Reverb G2
        even when rendering for the Reverb G2 with higher resolution than for the Pico4 -> i get higher frame rates with the G2
        so: there is compression need for the Pico4 (and also for quest2 and quest Pro)
        it costs time for the graphics card to compress the picture
        it costs time for the XR2 to decode the picture from the compressed signal
        if using Wifi there is also a wifi-latency as well

        to sum it up: i can play – 2070 super – easy games with 120hz on the index, and straggeling with 72fps and 90fps on the pico4

        so thats a problem..
        additional: the compressed pictures shows sometimes artefacts
        the xr2 in the moment state seems to max out at 220mbit

    • Alexander Sears

      No-one doubts the technical superiority of the QP.
      The value proposition here is academic however.
      The best headset is the one you can buy. (preferably without taking out a loan)

  • Oliver Cook

    “And the field-of-view is nearly identical to Quest 2’’. Absolute nonsense. The Quest Pros FOV is larger by 5 – 10 percent at least. You can gain more by adjusting the front pad by turning the wheel.

    • Kevin Brook

      Yes, feels like a 25 percent increast to me with the lenses brought as close as they will come. It’s much more impressive than my Vive Pro 2 FOV was.

  • Alexander Sears

    If $1500 is a non-insignificant percentage of your net worth, then steer clear and wait for the Quest 3. The Quest Pro appears to be a very technically competent device, but the Q2, while technically inferior in many ways, will satisfy 95% of the qualities one would experience with the QP for a quarter of the price of the QP. If one is rich, the rules change and a $220 per 1% technical improvement is not liable to get in the way of your enjoyment with the QP. While it wouldn’t kill me financially to pick one of these up (having no obligations comes highly recommended), I probably won’t. The controllers on the other hand… I’ll be keeping an eBay tab open in case a pair ever end up ‘on-sale’ after someone else pays the ‘new’ tax.

    • Kevin Brook

      The lenses are a generational leap. This honestly feels like the biggest jump between headsets that I’ve experienced, and this is my seventh headset. You will probably need a decent PC to run it properly, I have a 10850k, 3090 system and on this setup PCVR with the Pro is insanely good.

      Compared to headsets I’ve tried, all the Oculus headsets, Index, Vive Pro 2, Reverb G2, this is levels above. I couldn’t go back to using fresnel lenses again after this. it’s true edge to edge clarity and a really large FOV.

      You can run your eyes from the top to the bottom of the display and left all the way to the right and everything remains in perfect focus.

      It’s game changing for immersion, and a feeling of presence, world’s feel larger and more real.

      • Alexander Sears

        I’ll definitely pick one up, for the right price. If not the QP kit then definitely the controllers.

      • NL_VR

        How do you find it compared to Pico 4 which is a €429 headset

        • kraeuterbutter

          i have a pico4, no Quest Pro
          the Quest Pro is said to have:
          even better E2EC than the Pico4 (on the pico4 about 60% is totaly sharp, than loosing sharpness )
          the Quest Pro is said to have better colors and better blacks
          the Quest Pro is said to have a even bigger Sweetspot
          the Pico4 is said to be a little bit sharper (due to higher resolution) than the Quest Pro when using Virtual Desktop

          both headsets displays and lenses can not realy shine when using them standalone because the XR2 is here the limit (resolution it can render at given quality and fps)

          pico 4 has less goot “Coating” (or what they do) against reflections inside the lens-stacks
          so you get some “ghost-controllers” with the pico4 at high contrast szenes
          and some blure
          the Quest Pro is said to have that too, but much much less, barley noticeble

  • wowgivemeabreak

    “And did we mention they have rechargeable batteries”

    The neat thing with AA batteries is you can buy rechargeable versions and charge them up yourself and put them into your controllers or other devices.

    I’ll personally never understand the love some have for built in rechargeable batteries when batteries lose capacity over time. I’ll use my PS4 dualshock as an example of this since it clearly lasts less on a full charge than when I first got the system. It’s much easier to use my own rechargeables and swap them out when need be and then buy new batteries when the time comes that their capacity has declined enough to warrant that. Sure, this isn’t as convenient in theory as a built in battery and chucking it on a stand every day but it’s not like it takes long to swap out the batteries on my Q2 controllers, especially when it doesn’t need to be done for dozens of hours.

    The other bonus of being able to use your own battery is you aren’t screwed if you forgot to recharge the built in guy before you wan to use the device.

    I’ll add that I do not know if these new controllers allow you to replace the battery. If they do then that’s not too bad. If they don’t then that’s lame since they don’t last long on a charge which means a lot more recharges which then means less lifespan.

    It’s also lame if there is no way to easily add a knuckles type strap to these like you can with the Q2 controllers and their battery cover. Knuckles type straps are a borderline game changer and I’ll never go back to just using a wrist strap.

  • ale bro

    Does the Pro need external lighting to function?

    • Mhm.

    • Ben Lang

      Yup, I was surprised just how little light it needs, but it can’t operate under a certain level.

      • kraeuterbutter

        on Quest2 you can use infrarot lights to operate the Quest2 in complete darkness
        with the Quest Pro a reviewer tested it: not possible
        so you need some light, but surpringly lwo light is sufficient

  • Ad

    This is hilarious. This clearly had no focus, was supposed to release early last year, and is going to crash hard.

  • tvguy

    Awesome article, you completely nailed it.

  • ViRGiN

    I use it also to watch adult movies, and no blur on the edges helps to get into it.

  • Thats a fair enough review in my opinion. Product seems rushed. And a company of this size and budget shouldnt rely on third party applications when you launch a business focused premium product. Or make their own applications/UI as intuitive as possible.

    I‘ll wait.

  • alxslr

    I’m puzzled about the FOV comment. It’s not at all the idea I’m getting reading from other reviews and owners. Didn’t you find a noticiable increase? Did you make use of the eye-relief dial to maximize the FOV?

    • Ben Lang

      Yes I did bring it as close as it would go. People may have a difference sense of FOV because of the open sides of the device compared to Quest which is totally sealed.

      • Kevin Brook

        I really disagree with this, most of us see a much larger FOV. Switching between the Quest Pro and the Quest 2 and Reverb G2 the Q2 and G2 look like they have had their sides cut off.

        For me the horizontal FOV is comparable to what I could see in the HTC Vive Pro 2, but with a much taller vertial FOV and edge to edge clarity.
        Running on a 3090 at 5048 x 2736 this is best PCVR headset I’ve ever used.
        I agree with you regarding everything else though, it’s half baked as a productivity/enterprise headset, but for PCVR it’s amazing.

        • Ben Lang

          Meta themselves say the difference is 106ºH × 96ºV on Quest Pro vs. 96ºH × 96ºV on Quest 2 which isn’t a huge difference. It’s possible that some people benefit more from eye-relief than others based on their eye/head geometry. The vastly improved sweet spot size may also contribute to a feeling of wider FOV.

          • Kevin Brook

            96 to 106 is slightly more than a 10 percent difference, and 10 percent is definitely signifcant. Not only that but the Quest 2 is a single panel display with many people’s IPD being wider then the display itself so they would see black bars in the corners as they ran out of screen.
            The default facial interface on the Quest 2 also loses a lot of FOV for most people.

            I agree the edge to edge clarity is a key factor as well.

            It looks as wide as my Vive Pro 2 with a much larger vertical FOV as well.

          • Ben Lang

            The FOV area is not 10% larger. The geometry of Quest Pro lenses is more complex than this, but just for example, here is two circles, one of which is 10% wider than the other. The red part is the increase in area.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2ca72ff3c0ef891bb1691dd91f01c17cdd05b56fd9f035b80ca58528e36a736.png

  • Cheddar Bob

    Excellent review! Mirrors my thoughts exactly. I have added a velcro top strap and its helped the comfort a lot, its really disappointing to have some dodgy velcro hanging off such an otherwise premium bit of hardware.

    The lenses and controllers are the biggest improvements.

    I do think this is best used as a PCVR headset.

  • I see you are a big fan of the headset.

    BTW the price is clearly inflated by it being “prosumer”. The questions is what prosumers it is for

  • Aldus_

    I received the quest pro on Wednesday [purchased as a design dev tool for my studio].
    Tried it on, looked through the interface, hooked it up to my PC to test the link, and then put it straight back in the box for a refund.
    There was nothing I found justifying the price, and it felt like a Beta product.

    This article by Ben, is pretty much spot on to my thinking, and I reckon Meta will do some more damage to their brand releasing this product. Judging by the share price recently they are doing a great job of damaging the brand.

  • Aldus_

    100%.
    I couldn’t believe how beta it felt given the price paid.

  • Richard B.

    It would be interesting to see a COGS breakdown of the 2 vs the Pro. I suspect it isn’t really all that much of a gap, but Meta may be eating more margin on the 2 over the Pro as I suspect they want to subsidize it more and make money off Facebook and Meta store, whereas they expect corporate types to actually pay the full cogs plus a healthy margin as they are, well, corporate users.

    I honestly suspect many (if not all) of these features will show up in the 3, minus a few that Meta sees as “corporate-centric.”

    IMO.

  • Richard B.

    Another thought. P tree pole that are shooting 3D photos and videos (like I do with the Canon R5 and the VR double-fisheye lens), May find the clarity alone worth the extra money. I can say that the Q2 is horribly disappointing in the image quality department, and an extra $1100 for clearer edge-to-edge definition from the p ya lake lenses and display upgrade definitely makes the headset sound appealing.

    • Richard B.

      *People. Damn iPhone.

    • Richard B.

      *pancake lenses.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Or just buy a pico 4 if you want better visuals.

      • kraeuterbutter

        i have the pico4
        for pictures as @Richard B. said:
        the colors are not that great
        and: i have – with 360 panos – some “warping” of the image when turning.. its not that noticable in games, think i would not have noticed it at all
        but with 360 images i do
        its a little bit like looking at a beamer-canvas, which is not totaly flat and when image is moving there are kind of “waves” in the Picture
        i do not have that effect on my index or my Reverb G2

        nevertheless: i prefer the image of the Pico4 a lot over the image of the Quest2

        for 360 pictures: quest2 is very disappointing for me in that regard..
        the pico4 is better..
        but i bet, quest pro is here for sure king

        • Andrew Jakobs

          Don’t count on the quest pro to be king.

          • kraeuterbutter

            for looking at images, 3D or 360?
            between quest2, pico4 and quest Pro

            i think so, Quest pro will will here

            looking at other headsets: better:
            varjo aero
            maybe Reverb G2 (when fokusing on resolution and ignoring the E2EC-PRoblem)

  • michael b

    You need to grow up.

  • MosBen

    I’ll start with something that I just find interesting as someone that’s followed VR pretty closely since the original Oculus Kickstarter. It’s kind of fascinating to see issues with VR hardware disappear as the tech has gotten better and the people engineering these devices get more and more experience. Not that long ago reviews of VR hardware would have to discuss the screen door effect; how noticeable was it, how hard was it to see things like text through, etc. And it’s not even mentioned here because we’ve more or less moved passed the era where there’s a factor for modern VR displays. And it seems like the need to discuss god rays will similarly be going away sooner rather than later as we move into an era where they simply don’t exist on modern HMDs. In 10-20 years it will be interesting to see if we get to a place where things like field of view or controller tracking similarly just fall away as issues that just get solved. That’ll be neat to see.

    As for the Quest Pro, it has always seemed to me like a platform that allowed FB to work out some new features and have that work partially subsidized by the relatively small number of enterprise clients who decide that it works for them and the VR users with large enough wallets to buy in. But it seems fairly clear to me that this is just the place where most of these features are worked on and refined until they get incorporated into the next consumer-level device coming next year.

    • Ben Lang

      Yup great point. Those discussions fade as the solutions come to the fore.

      • MosBen

        I imagine that it was probably similar in the early days of color film and TV. Various technologies like Technicolor produced different results, and I’m sure that film fans had discussions about which was the best, what new techniques were coming up and what advances they would bring, etc. But other than criticizing a creator’s choice of color palette (looking at you Snyderverse), that’s simply a technical issue which has gone away. Between the hype cycles for VR and the people who are always proclaiming doom for the tech it’s sometimes hard to remember that we’re still in the early days of VR. Someone looking back on these posts in 20-30 years probably won’t even grasp the importance of things like mura, screen door, god rays, etc.

  • Source Caster

    Completely useless overpriced piece of hardware with some cool particular features such as pancake lenses and eye tracking. Period. Meta stock price confirms that as well. They only needed one thing to make it usable: resolution. I wonder how (almost) everyone makes the same mistake for almost 5 years already. Give this device 2800×2800 per eye and it will replace monitors for a lot of people in a short period of time. It has everything else you need.

  • As always, great write up Ben.

    I agree, why spend $1500 when the Quest 2 does most if not all of what people want. I can think of only one reason why the Quest 3 did not come out this holiday and that is due to Quest 2 inventory. Quest Pro won’t cannibalize the consumer market. I expect the Quest 3 in late Q2, 2023.

    Regardless, these front heavy, brow beating designs are not conducive for long term play (work). I am still in the camp of a very light design like the new Lenovo XR glasses and offloaded processing/power. There you can design as much power and longevity into tiers. of cost/performance. Especially with the new AMD APUs released in Q4/2022 that will allow small packages that can play most desktop VR in medium/low settings. Hopefully this is the route Valve goes instead of an “All-in-one” design like maybe Steam Deck – Compact HMD inside-out unbounded tracking system, that attaches to belt with magnetic base you wear so the ‘Reality Processing Unit’ fits snugly in the small of your back, with spring loaded embillical cable to the HMD to ensure there is no slack.

    It should also be noted that Apple has experimented with this concept too. Expecially since an iPad mini with M2 has been reported.

    • Ben Lang

      I’d be very curious to see Meta’s take on a belt-tethered headset.

  • Charles Latch

    No one is going to buy this piece of garbage

  • Charles Latch

    **SPONSORED CONTENT**

    • Ben Lang

      This is not sponsored content.

  • rfanck

    rtx 4090 owners or 4080 ! Do you have the same catastrophic performance as quest 2 using link as the rtx 4000 cards are not recognized by meta ? thanks

  • Zuan

    The story makes you feel like you have entered a magical world.