When Quest first launched in 2019, we called it the “first great standalone VR headset,” owing to it being a truly complete package between hardware, software, and content. And over the course of its life, we saw Quest improve over time with software updates that added new features and improved existing ones. And now we have Quest 2, which is pretty much the same headset, just better in (almost) every way.

Quest 2 is (just about) here! Facebook announced the headset and opened pre-orders today starting at $300. Oculus Quest 2 has a release date of October 13th.

But before owners of the original Quest look at their old headset with disdain, consider this. Quest 2 might be better in (almost) every way, but it really doesn’t do anything new. Quest 2 has effectively zero new features compared to the original, and Oculus says both headsets will share the same game library.

A quandary then… would Quest 2 have been better called ‘Quest S‘? Well yes, but also… no. As you’ll find throughout our review, a good chunk of Quest 2’s potential has not yet been unlocked. Similar to the original, Quest 2 will see improvements over time. In that sense, I think it would be fair to call it Quest S on day one, but once Oculus delivers some promised post-launch improvements, it’ll earn the name Quest 2.

Oculus Quest 2 vs. Quest Specs

Photo by Road to VR

Before we dive into the full review, here’s a breakdown of Quest 2 compared to Quest official specs:

Quest 2 Quest
Resolution (per-eye) 1,832 × 1,920 (LCD)
1,440 × 1,600 (OLED)
Refresh Rate 90Hz 72Hz
Processor Snapdragon XR2
Snapdragon 835
Battery Life 2–3 hours 2–3 hours
Controller Battery Life 4x original
Field of View Equal Equal
IPD Adjust 58mm, 63mm, 68mm 58–72mm
Weight 503g 571g
Storage 64GB or 256GB 64GB or 128GB
Strap Soft (rigid sold separately) Rigid

Now onto the full review… if you want to summary without the detail, skip to the very end for our conclusion.


Photo by Road to VR

One of the most exciting but as of yet untapped bits of hardware in Quest 2 is the processor. While the original Quest launched with a dated (even at the time) Snapdragon 835, Oculus effectively picked the highest-end processor they could for Quest 2, the Snapdragon XR2. Not only is it significantly more powerful, it’s also a made-for-VR chip which includes some additional features that make it even better for use in a VR headset.

But it’s going to take some time until we see the XR2 really shining in Quest 2. On day one, Oculus says that Quest 2 will run have an ‘experimental’ 90Hz option which will run the headset’s main menu at that refresh rate. Games, however, will continue to run at 72Hz.

“Soon” after launch, according to Oculus, the company will make the 90Hz mode default for the main menu and also allow developers to take advantage of the extra refresh rate, but that may well require per-app updates.

New Oculus Users Required to Use Facebook Account Starting in October, Existing Users by 2023

The same thing applies to Oculus Link. On day one, if you plug Quest 2 into your PC to use Link, your PC VR content will run at 72Hz and have the same encoding quality as original Quest. “Soon” after launch, Oculus says, Quest 2 will be able to use Link at 90Hz and higher quality.

So it’s going to take some time before we see the full power of Quest 2.

The good news is that most games can automatically take advantage of Quest 2’s higher resolution, so that’s one benefit that you’ll see right out of the gate, and it’s a big one.

Display & Lenses

Photo by Road to VR

The leap in resolution and framerate are among Quest 2’s most meaningful improvements. Quest 2 has a per-eye resolution of 1,832 × 1,920 (3.5 megapixels) compared to the original’s 1,440 × 1,600 (2.3 megapixels). That’s a nice jump already, but there’s a bit of an extra boost because Quest 2’s LCD display has more sub-pixels—which fill in the ‘screen door effect’ even more—than Quest’s OLED display. On Quest 2, the screen door effect is basically invisible.

Pixels are too small to be seen individually; you can still see evidence of the underlying pixel structure against flat colors, but it fades away against anything textured.

The resolution difference is noticeable right away. Between the extra sharpness and the smoother motion of the 90Hz display, stepping up to the menu in Quest 2 feels a bit more real than with the original Quest.

As some know, the move from OLED to LCD comes with some downsides too. Most notably that LCD can’t get close to the deep blacks that OLED can. Although it doesn’t have those deep blacks of the original, it also has massively reduced smearing which is arguably a worthwhile tradeoff because higher resolution doesn’t mean much if you can’t keep pixels from smearing often.

Quest 2’s lenses are effectively the same as the original. They’re fresnel as before, and have the same issues with ‘god rays’ as any modern fresnel lens (that is: annoying god rays on high contrast elements, but generally not to bothersome in most scenes). Oculus declined to share Quest 2’s official field of view, but said it is equivalent to the original Quest (that is: enough to be immersive, but more would still be nice). The ‘sweet spot’ or clarity across the lens, is roughly the same as the original Quest.

Quest 2’s lenses and display are tuned well. Chromatic aberration, pupil swim, and smearing are effectively invisible. Mura is almost invisible as well, but it’ll show up faintly against certain flat colors if you go looking for it.


Photo by Road to VR

Quest 2’s IPD can be physically adjusted between three positions: 58mm, 63mm, and 68mm. Rather than a slider on the bottom of the headset which allows you to adjust the IPD while looking through the lenses, to change the IPD on Quest 2 you need to remove the headset and grasp both lenses and tug them into one of the other positions.

Because of the delineated IPD adjustment, even if you’re within the minimum and maximum range, you could be up to 2.5mm out of the ‘ideal’ lens alignment (if you were to fall exactly between the available positions). We can infer that if Oculus felt being up to 2.5mm out of alignment was ok in the middle of the range, it would also be ok on the ends of the range—giving Quest 2 a ‘maximum recommended’ IPD range from 55.5mm to 70.5mm, which is pretty close to the original Quest’s ‘maximum recommended’ range of 56 to 74mm.

How to Measure Your IPD and Why It's Important for VR & AR Headsets

Since my IPD is roughly 63mm, I wouldn’t be able to see what the image looks like if it were 2.5mm off center (not with any reasonable precision, anyway). We’ll have to wait for more widespread feedback to know if falling between the three positions hampers the visual experience much, or if Quest 2’s eye-box is large enough to accommodate (clearly, Oculus felt this to be the case).

However, if you use the widest IPD setting you may see a bit of clipping of the field of view (this is a result of the single display design in which the lenses move closer to the edges of the display when adjusting for IPD).


Quest 2, like its predecessor, has hidden integrated speakers that allow audio to emanate from the headband. Even though the speaker openings are a bit closer, they’re still miles away from being centrally aligned with the ear, which makes them sub-par for accurate spatial audio.

In terms of sound quality and volume, Quest 2’s speakers feel right in line with Quest. Meaning the audio is passable, but a far cry from from the quality you’d hear from something like Index or even the original Rift CV1. For anyone coming from a Rift S at least, you’ll be happy to know that Quest 2’s audio is louder and of better quality.

Many games will do fine with Quest 2’s build in audio, but for games with especially good sound tech and design, you’ll miss out on a lot of added immersion without a better audio solution.

Although it’s a bummer to have to fumble with headphones to get that maximum immersion from Quest, at least the option to add your own audio is available thanks to the single 3.5mm audio input on the side (unlike original Quest, there’s only one 3.5mm audio input on Quest 2).

Design & Ergonomics

Photo by Road to VR

Quest 2’s design isn’t fundamentally different than its predecessor, but it does bring a number of refinements. In terms of size and weight, it’s a bit smaller and a bit lighter.

Quest 2 manages to look slightly less bulbous, if a bit less premium due to the all-plastic finish versus the fabric finish of the original.

The minimal button and port layous are all effectively identical: a volume rocker on the bottom, USB-C charging & data port on the left next to a 3.5mm audio input, and a power button and LED power indicator on the right.

Soft Strap & Elite Strap

Photo by Road to VR

The biggest change to the design is the head strap. Out of the box you’ll get a soft strap which is, at least for my head, a bit of a downgrade over the original Quest’s rigid strap. Rigid straps have the benefit of gripping the back of your head and lifting weight off the front of your head via support from the top and side straps. Soft straps without any structure can’t do this nearly as well because they can only really support the front of the headset via the top strap and can’t grip the back of the head as well without a vice-like tightness. When I use the soft strap I find that there’s more pressure than I’d like on my forehead.

Now, this would be a bummer if not for the fact that Oculus is, finally, offering first-party ergonomic accessories, including an Elite Strap and an Elite Battery Strap, both of which are rigid and specifically designed with a counterweight (fingers crossed for an an Elite Audio Strap in the future).

Quest 2 with Elite Strap | Photo by Road to VR

The good news is that the Elite Strap design is excellent—I’d say Oculus’ best headstrap yet—which makes me really wish they just included it by default. It seems pretty clear that not doing so was largely a cost-saving decision.

For most serious VR users, I’m just going to go ahead and recommend you get the Elite Strap or the Elite Battery Strap on day one. Yes, it’s at least another $50 on top of the $300 base price, but it’s worth it.

Fit Pack

On top of the Elite Strap options, Oculus is also going to be selling a ‘Fit Pack’ ($40) which will include light blockers that fit around the lenses (to cover any light coming from the nose cavity) as well as two different face pads to accommodate wider or narrower faces. I haven’t had my hands on the Fit Pack, but found that the included face pad worked fine for me and I wasn’t bothered by any light leakage. It’s great that these accessories will be available though so a wider range of people can find an ergonomic fit that works for them.

Quest 2 also comes with a glasses spacer which holds the lenses a little further from your eyes so that there’s room for glasses in between. The face pad is slightly less wide than the original Quest, so especially wide frames might be problematic.


Photo by Road to VR

At first glance, Quest 2’s controllers might not look much different than the original Quest controllers, but they’ve actually seen a significant ergonomic redesign—or perhaps more of an ergonomic throwback. The ‘new’ controller design is very close to the Touch controllers of the original Rift CV1 headset. And that’s a great thing because they arguably had the best ergonomics of any VR controller to date.

Quest 2 controller (left), Quest controller (right) | Photo by Road to VR

Compared to the Quest controllers, Quest 2’s controllers are larger and feature a much larger, and offset ‘face’ which provides a natural area to rest your thumb without resting them on a button. The handle shape seems to fit into the hand a bit more purposefully too. The Quest 2 controllers are actually a bit larger than the original Rift CV1 controllers as well. For me that makes them slightly larger than ideal (but those with larger hands will surely feel the opposite). Even still, I think the ergonomic shift back toward the Rift CV1 controllers is a nice improvement.

Rift CV1 controller (left), Quest 2 controller (right) | Photo by Road to VR

And there’s another benefit hiding inside. The Quest 2 haptics are notably more powerful than their predecessors. We don’t yet know if they’re capable of some of the advanced haptic effects seen on the Rift CV1 controllers, but we expect to learn more about this soon.

Quest 2’s controllers are also now more power efficient and last up to four times longer than the original Quest controllers, according to Oculus. We’ll need to follow up on that claim because our controller batteries have yet to run out!

Unfortunately Oculus has confirmed that Quest 2 controllers are not compatible with Quest or Rift S.

IPD Adjustment

I already talked about the IPD adjustment up in the hardware section, but there’s a design element that needs to be talked about as well.

I’m glad Quest 2 has an IPD adjustment, even if it can only be moved between three discrete settings (58mm, 63mm, and 68mm). However, the approach is a bit baffling. Rather than a slider on the bottom of the headset which allows you to look at the image as you adjust the IPD, on Quest 2 you need to remove the headset, grab the lenses, push them into one of the other positions, and then put the headset back on.

Given that the different settings are simply labeled 1, 2, and 3—and that there’s seemingly no guidance for the user about which position they should select—I don’t see how users are expected to set their IPD correctly. Even if you could do it by sight, the need to remove the headset, change the lens position, then put it back on means you can’t look at the image as you adjust it, which makes it far harder to set by sight. And even if you’re a VR enthusiast and actually know your own IPD measurement, you have to remember which numbered setting corresponds with which measurement.

Unless I’m missing something, this is a strange approach to IPD adjustment and one which I doubt will result in the majority of users using the correct setting.

Continue on Page 2: Tracking & Experience »

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."
  • TechPassion

    So you knew it all and had the device in your office.. :)
    In the meantime you published leaks. Kind of funny. Anyway, thanks for the review ha ha

    • Kevin White

      Not unusual at all, this happens with car sites, motorcycle sites, sites that are into GPUs and games, etc. The embargo agreement prevents them from releasing official information, but they can cover “leaks.”

      • Ad

        GPUs they say they have something under embargo

    • benz145

      We do our best to quarantine embargoed information. Often times if there’s a leak, the person covering a leak won’t have access to the embargoed info.

    • It’s general practice. I too know some info under NDA for my consultancy job and I can publish as a blogger only what it becomes of public domain

  • Cless

    Lost my interest when I saw that its yet another headset using an lcd panel. I guess it will be fine for light gaming, but not to get good image quality or good immersion.

    Next gen headsets can’t come soon enough… :/

    • MasterElwood

      No new HMD is using OLEDS anymore.
      Not the REVERB G2
      Not the INDEX
      Nothing. To many downsides like black smear, no full RGB and low black resolution.

      • Kevin White

        If Samsung ever releases something new it’ll be interesting to see if they stick with Pentile OLED or switch to RGB LCD.

        • Charles

          If they stick to OLED, they’ll sell like hotcakes and dominate the market. I believe they will stick with OLED – it’s Samsung’s specialty.

          • Bob

            “If they stick to OLED, they’ll sell like hotcakes and dominate the market”

            Display panel technology is not going to save Samsung or anyone else for that matter from Facebook’s extremely aggressive predatory pricing practices on a cutting edge standalone VR device in a relatively young industry. Not sure what you’re smoking here but whatever it is it’s clearly not helping your own understanding of how markets work.

          • Charles

            Oculus headsets are not priced any lower than Samsung’s (much better) headset. And I refuse to call a headset with 700:1 contrast “cutting edge”.

          • Ben Bega

            What does Samsung have?

          • Charles
          • Ben Bega

            Sooo its the same cost for the headset but you also need to spend 800$+ on a PC. Not exactly the same cost..

          • Charles

            I don’t see why they can’t just offer a “Quest 2+” option with a better display for a higher price. As a computer engineer, I see no reason why they couldn’t. Same with the Reverb and the Index. People would definitely be willing to pay extra for it.

          • Ben Bega

            Hi fellow computer engineer (although I work in mainly EE now). Its mostly because the market is still so small. The current production run of Quest 2 is only 2 million units. Thats an insanely small amount relative to these companies (initial console runs are 10mil units). Plus, there are no high resolution OLED panels with RGB stripe at the moment, so we’d still be stuck with the crappy pentile arrangement. Its also meant to be more mainstream, meaning a lot of the consumers wont actually know what the pros are for OLED anyway. Eventually the market will be able to sustain choice, but it will be a while

          • Charles

            There is actually one OLED VR display with very high resolution (4K). And it’s RGB stripe, though at 4K that doesn’t matter as much (especially if it has a diffuser). This 4K RGB OLED VR display has been in production since the middle of last year:

            Not sure how much it costs, but as long as it wouldn’t make the headset much more than $1000 then the headset would sell well. People would pay a lot for something a lot better than the competition. Though I see that it’s only 60Hz. But a mega-corporation like HP or Facebook could commission the display company to develop a version with a higher refresh rate – even 72Hz would be good enough.

            I understand how multiple production lines can be expensive. But it seems to me they could have a single production setup that just has one part where it branches in two, and that should keep the costs to a minimum. A much, much better headset WOULD sell VERY well, and so they would recover their monetary investment. In addition, Pimax has several versions of their high-resolution headsets – they’ve got like 5 different versions in production. If a small company like Pimax can handle it, I don’t believe that a mega-corporation like HP or Facebook couldn’t handle it.

            “a lot of the consumers wont actually know what the pros are for OLED”
            They won’t know the technical details, but they’ll notice the very-poor LCD experience in dim/dark environments, and if they compare it to an OLED headset they’ll never wanna touch the LCD one again.

          • Bob

            Right and those extra $50 dollars shaved off is really going to convert average Joe Shmo from getting a well established and marketed brand name headset to a tethered only headset using a Windows operating system coming from Samsung.

            “And I refuse to call a headset with 700:1 contrast “cutting edge”.”

            Yes it doesn’t have OLED but I’d suggest you take another look at this headset’s specifications.

          • Cless

            You have a point with average Joe Shmo for what Facebook might be selling, not that sure that same point works for the people that buy +500$ headsets though, since those customers tend to be way more informed, just like the people that buy any medium/high PC components. And that is the thing, VR headsets should be just that, another PC component.

          • Bob

            The average Joe Shmo is generally not very informed but they understand value when they see something which in this case is the value of standalone and PCVR headset against a PCVR only headset with a cable sticking out of it.

          • Cless

            Yeah, not arguing that at all. I agree 100%.
            This market would be more for the people that buy mid/high tier stuff or higher, which usually the Joe Shmo doesn’t even bother with (unless their computer savy friend told them what to buy hahah).

          • Charles

            You’re right – “Samsung” is totally NOT a “well established and marketed brand name”…

            But anyway, I recognize that almost-4K resolution as a standalone headset is a new accomplishment. I just consider 700:1 contrast to be such a spoiler that as a complete package the headset is not “cutting edge”. Kind of like a bigscreen 8K OLED TV that can only display in black-and-white.

          • Bob

            We’re talking about VR specifically here not smartphones or kitchen appliances and in case if you haven’t noticed Samsung VR doesn’t have the same ring or recognition as it does with Oculus VR. Consumers are ignorant but not that ignorant.

            Yes believe it or not the Oculus brand is actually significantly and by a colossal margin more popular than a major electronics company branded VR. Shocking, right?

            Calling it an “OLED TV that can only display in black-and-white” is hyperbole at its finest which suffice to say doesn’t help at all with your original argument in the slightest in regards to market domination through the use of OLED.

          • Cless

            They might be able to get to be kings of PC VR, which for the next decade or two is going to keep being significantly superior to standalone VR.

      • Charles

        Black smear is easily solvable by slightly limiting the depth of black levels. There’s already an easy fix in SteamVR using OpenVR Advanced Settings. The Vive fixes it automatically.

        Lack of full-RGB is due to cost (PSVR has it) but becomes a non-issue at high resolution (4K or above).

        Decent contrast is absolutely critical to VR immersion. Current LCD VR displays have garbage contrast – like staring at a cheap LCD PC monitor from a thrift shop.

        • Bob Smith

          The Index actually uses a TFT LCD (maybe Rift as well?) which is bottom of the barrel. Higher refresh rates aren’t everything. OLED is way better. Come on Samsung. Let’s see an OLED Odyssey 2.

      • Adam Kontras

        I have a Vive Pro wireless setup – and returned my index because of the LCD screens.

        Properly calibrated, OLEDs are just breathtaking. It’s so, freaking, hard, to go back to washed out greys. Totally bummed Quest 2 went this route. I’d take OLED over slightly improved resolution any day.

        • Cless

          Exactly my thoughts. I think its kind of depressing that nearing the end of 2020… there still isn’t anything that really beats Vive Pro + Wireles + lens mod.

          • Charles

            Vive Pro is great. If you don’t care much about wireless, the Odyssey+ is better (with a VRCover and OpenVR Advanced Settings).


            Yes i rather prefer playing Half life Alyx with my Rift CV1 (oled panels) than with the pimax 5k+
            OLED is pure joy in low light environmemts games.
            Too bad Vive Pro has too much SDE for me.

        • Bob

          If they went the OLED route they wouldn’t have been able to get it down to $299 so understand the economics. There’s only so much a for-profit company can do to subsidize their products in order to make it as affordable as possible.

          So I’m not sure why anyone expected super high resolution dual AMOLED panels at $299 – $399.

          • Cless

            That is true, but its sad to think that not even high tier stuff like the Index would have it. I would have payed up to 150 to 200 extra bucks for an index with RGB OLED (even if the HZ would have been limited to 120, or even 90).

          • Bob

            Unfortunately the demand isn’t there for VR devices in order for companies to start mass producing incredibly expensive AMOLED displays for this specific purpose. Once the market matures and becomes ubiquitous you should see more companies transitioning to better display technologies but for now it’s costs savings.

          • Cless

            I agree, that is what makes it sad. It would be nice to see the extremely high tier brought down to the $1500-$2000 range at least…

          • Charles

            The original Quest was released a year and a half ago with 1600p OLED. I’m sure this time they could have managed at least 1800p OLED (maybe even with a slight diffuser like the Odyssey+) for around the same price.

          • Bob

            Sure why don’t we sell a headset with an XR2 SoC and dual high resolution AMOLED screens with full IPD adjustment for a cheap-as-chips price of $299? Not a bad idea right?

          • Charles

            I don’t see why they can’t just offer a “Quest 2+” option with a better display for a higher price. As a computer engineer, I see no reason why they couldn’t. Same for the Reverb and the Index. People would definitely be willing to pay extra for it.

    • dk

      unless the oled uses rbg stripe matrix …it’s completely worthless to me …but oled rgb is expensive or low volume production or something
      u can’t have low price and perfect fov or matrix
      I’m extremely happy it’s rgb and 50% more pixels …if u don’t like it use whatever oled headsets r still left ….not to mention they don’t turn off pixels completely black to try to avoid black smearing and so on

      • Cless

        Not turning off pixels completely back still kicks any LCD display to the absolute dirt.
        And the higher the resolution, the less important subpixels become. I’d rather have slightly noticeable screendoor than a grey smear where its suposed to be dark and black.

        • dk

          the small difference in colors is literally useless if the resolution and subpixels r not as best as possible ….vr is really far from 20/20 human vision and needs all it can get to improve clarity ….if u would prefer to spend your money on oled headsets I’m completely fine with u doing that but almost none use it at this time…..maybe there will be another oled with rgb stripe matrix like psvr at some point ….but unfortunately most likely for $600 at least if not $1000

          and it’s not slightly noticeable screen door it’s one third reduction of the fill factor or more compared to rgb stripe matrix

          • Cless

            Yeah… Like I said, you can ignore the screendoor effect when you’re moving, even with super low resolution like in the OG Vive or Rift you end up forgeting about it as long as you aren’t reading text.
            If two headsets have similar resolution, I will take OLED pentile over RGB LCD ANYDAY without a second thought.

      • Charles

        Black smear is very easily solved by slightly limiting black levels. Vive Pro does this automatically, and you fix this on the Odyssey(+) using a slight color filter in OpenVR Advanced Settings.

        • dk

          limiting black levels means getting closer to ips

          • Charles

            A bit closer, but still miles and miles away. Perfection isn’t necessary. And the OpenVR setting is quickly-adjustable in-game.

            Some games really benefit from absolute darkness, like the “Abyss” level in “theBlu”. For most other games, slightly off looks great. But miles off never looks good.

          • Cless

            The black levels are many orders of magnitude better even when limiting the black levels. Don’t quote me on it, but it was something ridiculous like, LCD at 1% and OLED at 0.001% or something like that.

          • dk

            get an ips and an oled headset ….if u haven’t already ….even if the difference was that …..again it is literally useless to me if the resolution and matrix is not the same

            if u prefer and u r happier with the q1 display over the q2 display …I’m happy for u ….I personally prefer 50% more pixels and 33% more subpixels …aslo if the resolution and subpixels r the same in 2 headsets and the ips is $100 cheaper then the oled I might go for the ips

          • Cless

            I have tried most headsets, since I had easy access to most for being a game dev. I won’t touch a facebook mobile headset again not even with a yardstick (facebooks fault though, nothing personal against the headests themselves).
            I own at the moment an OG Vive with index controllers, but to my experience, from all the headsets there are in the market in the under $1200 range at the moment, the Vive Pro, with modded lenses and wireless is still the king, followed close by the index, which, fails in not having an OLED display specifically.

          • dk

            good for u ….most people will touch it :P

    • Gonzax

      Next gen will still most likely be LCD. I’m not seeing the industry going back to OLED any time soon.

      • Cless

        Not really, no. Until now most tech has been borrowed from phones (display wise), and that is about to end.
        The screens developed for VR that are on the production phase. Its not crazy to think that many of those will probably make it into the next gen.
        From those, 0 are LCD, that technology is a deadend. Only oled or even microLED make the cut.
        The only LCDs we will see will be left only for the bottom of the bin headsets and the ones oriented to cutting costs as much as possible (like the quest 2).

  • Oli Norwell

    “Out of the box you’ll get a soft strap which is, at least for my head, a bit of a downgrade over the original Quest’s rigid strap.” Yikes. Quest 2 seems great other than this bizzare decision. The Quest 1’s strap is terrible… and they made it worse??

    But just to confirm – Quest 2 seems amazing – other than this oddity

    • MosBen

      Well, it’s not that odd. They’ve already dumped the Go, which was their low-cost option. So now they have the Quest 2 which isn’t that far from the Go’s price, but is a far more capable product. And as the review said, the decision about the straps is almost certainly a cost-saving measure. So the Quest 2 is either $100 less than the first gen and a bit less good in a couple ways, or $50 cheaper and the only real drawback is the Facebook integration. That’s not a bad tradeoff, though for me the Facebook stuff is a deal breaker.

    • dk

      it’s not odd at all …$300 to make u get your foot in the door …. strap/battery strap/other stuff later …..at least it still comes with a charger in the box :P lol

  • psuedonymous

    “Quest 2’s lenses are effectively the same as the original”

    That’s disappointing, the Rift S lenses were a significant step up over Quests.

    • sfmike

      Really disappointing to me as the god rays are for crap and annoy me constantly.

    • MeowMix

      Rift S and Quest (and GO) use the same lenses

      • Lucidfeuer

        They don’t, even though Rift S are a bit of a step-up, they’re still absolutely horrible

  • MosBen

    I’m still shocked that Facebook has so little competition in this space. I’ve thought for years that mobile VR was the future of the technology, but Facebook seems to be walking away with this product segment. And that’s a shame, because with the deeper integration of Facebook into their VR products I’ve reached a point where I really don’t want to buy their stuff anymore. Fortunately, I have a Quest and a CV1, so I can continue to play around with VR while I wait for other options (and while I spend money upgrading my PC), but man, this area is ripe for some competition. A mobile HMD with a manual IPD adjustment and no other differences from the Quest 2 would be fairly close to an instant buy for me, and that’s leaving out things like wider FOV, etc. which would represent really significant improvements.

    • wheeler

      I don’t think it’s too surprising given that up to this point VR is just a huge money pit. Others have established, proven platforms on established, proven mediums and are raking in the billions. Regardless of the chance of VR gaming becoming profitable in the near term for the masses, FB *needs* to do this now because otherwise when/if the tech is ready the others will win by default due to the inertia of their established platforms. So they need to get there before anyone else in order to secure at least some potential of having their own successful platform on a future medium. The established players are probably just watching to see if their are signs of promise (without all of that hype we have to toil through clouding their judgement).

      • sfmike

        You can tell they are now putting their money on AR as being the billion dollar moneymaker.

        • AR glasses and eventually AR contact lenses are the logical replacement for smartphones as our virtual and physical interactions are freed by “head up, hands free” computing.

          Once heavy glasses are available to consumer at keen pricing it will be widely adopted, but 10 years away perhaps?


          • dk

            well facebook and apple will have “smart glasses” in 2021-22 …6dof slightly beefier glasses like aria …3 generations later but by then they will be quite popular ….so 2025-7 it will be quite somewhat popular

            unless facebook wants to start off with the 6dof glasses strait away

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      I really hope that not only Facebook learned a lot from the Quest 1, but also Qualcomm, and that many of the features will be available to other manufacturers using the XR2 SoC too. Oculus did some nifty things to get decent tracking on the Quest 1, off-loading it completely to the Hexagon DSP on the SD835, which gave them quite a competitive advantage. But the XR2 is supposed to feature 11x the AI performance compared to the 835, so instead of throwing a lot of brain power à la John Carmack at the problem, better tracking can now kind of be “brute forced” due to the increased computational power., and Qualcomm most likely provides some standard libraries for this.

      So now it might actually be easier to compete with the Quest 2, simply because it was so hard to get the Quest 1 to work at all due to the limited mobile chipset. Facebook will still have a competitive advantage in terms of software polish, the whole platform, software exclusives and all their social integration. But if all you care for is a fast, mobile VR headset that ideally can also stream from a PC, a pretty generic XR2 HMD from almost anybody might do, and thanks to the forced Quest 2 Facebook account, the market for these has just increased. All the vendor might have to do to create source code compatibility would be providing an OpenXR compatible plugin that connects to e.g. the current Unity XR SDK to get a lot of developers to publish for their devices.

      • MosBen

        Excellent points. And yep, in any technology the early days require lots of work and ingenuity to get things working. But as the technology develops things get streamlined and basic functions become standardized across the industry. And as you say, I’m sure that we’ll see this in VR. I’m just surprised that we’re not hearing more noise about competing products despite the XR2 being around now for a little while.

        • silvaring

          Facebook timed exclusivity? I remember making the same guesses during the CV1 era when only they or HTC could seemingly get access to OLED screens and Fresnel lenses.

    • I would love to see a standalone headset get the “Valve Index treatment”, with no compromises on quality and features, but in a standalone package. Of course you need to have an entire infrastructure and ecosystem built on ARM to make that happen, maybe that’s what’s holding competitors back.

      Really wish we hadn’t lost Daydream. :(

      • MosBen

        Yeah, Google really had an opportunity to build something interesting, but did the classic Google thing of bailing on a project too soon. As for the “Valve Index treatment”, as much as I want an Index, I think that Facebook is probably doing the right strategy right now in pushing prices as far down as possible with incremental hardware improvements. The two biggest factors in VR adoption right now are cost and content. Most people simply aren’t going to spend $1,000 on a VR setup, ever. But non-tech nerds like my parents or sister/brother-in-law might go for something in the $300 range, if there was a compelling reason to do so, which goes to content. As long as many of us have followed VR, we’re still in the relatively early days of VR content, and developers are still figuring out the best practices of the medium. But in the not-too-distant future we’re going to have developers with lots of experience developing in VR and lots of years of feedback from users about what does and doesn’t work. And with platforms like Quest we’re going to see more non-gaming applications, like Venues, that might be compelling for people who aren’t hardcore gamers.

        • Yeah, I agree low cost devices have been a crucial first step, and standalone really had to prove itself with Quest.
          Given what we know now though, it seems like there’s a good opportunity for the right player to come into this space and offer something either higher quality or just more focused on respecting its user base.

    • Tabp

      You were mistaken unless you meant the distant future. Mobile hardware isn’t powerful enough to handle PC VR games without tethering to a PC, and even Facebook had to give up and add the Link. Facebook spent a fortune to bribe developers into making Quest games, nobody else is positioned do that, and Facebook will start defending their investment if a serious competitor tries to support Quest games.

      A competing mobile headset would lack games, cost more, and be behind in R&D, so it’s a losing proposition until mobile hardware is good enough to have a sufficient Windows PC built into the headset. Once it gets to that point the industry will shift and you’ll get your future.

      • Engineer_92

        Well with the XR2, its power hasnt really begun to be tapped into yet. Itll be about 1-2 years before we really see XR2 is fully capable of. I wouldnt discount companies like Apple either.

      • MosBen

        The future of VR doesn’t necessarily mean the most powerful hardware running the most detailed games possible. It’s whatever grows VR into a mainstream industry and artistic medium. Mobile hardware will never be as powerful as what you can fit into a desktop machine that’s not powered by batteries, but it does provide you with so many benefits that that’s why I say that it’s the future of VR. My parents or sister will never in their lives build or buy a gaming PC. But they might buy a Quest, or something like it.

        And sure, Facebook paid a lot of money up front to encourage VR development, and while that was definitely in their own interest, they also deserve a fair amount of credit for jumpstarting and investing in development of VR software. A competitor couldn’t do that, but then, by now there are plenty of VR games that aren’t Oculus exclusive and there appear to be more games coming on the horizon that could be enough to form the basis for a game library.

        • Tabp

          Current levels of hardware power aren’t good enough for the mainstream or for artists. There is a point where hardware power will stop being the limiting factor, but it’s going to take a while.

          • Bob

            “There is a point where hardware power will stop being the limiting factor

            Unreal Engine 5 has already technically achieved this.

          • Cless

            Not even close. Those features they have hyped so much won’t be used that much. As a 3D game artist myself, I can assure you that. It would be way too costly not performance wise, but size wise. Until we see massive SSD storage that won’t happen. Not even with UE5.

          • Cless

            As a professional game artist I can corroborate this. Working in VR on PC already is already quite constraining, mobile VR feels like making phone games again like its 2010, horrible. Way too many sacrifices need to be made for performance.

          • MosBen

            As I said, mobile hardware will always be behind desktop hardware. It’s just physics. The question is whether near future mobile hardware is going to be good enough to create compelling VR content that non-hardcore gamers can get behind at prices that non-hardcore games find compelling. I think that the Quest 2 is already either there or very close, but if we extend this out a couple years I don’t even think that there’s a serious argument anymore. No, it’s not going to run Metro: Exodus, but that’s only a benchmark for hardcore gamers that aren’t like the millions of people who are happy playing games on, say, the Switch. I mean, how much more horsepower would a future VR device need to run something like Animal Crossing VR? Also keep in mind that VR going “mainstream” doesn’t mean that it supplants traditional gaming platforms. People will almost certainly continue to play flatscreen games on consoles and PC for a long time, but with VR as something that tens of millions of people also spend their time with. And again, the cost and freedom/flexibility of a mobile VR system is just huge for lots of people.

    • TechPassion

      3080 RTX + Reverb G2 or Odyssey+

      • MosBen

        Yeah, but cost + wires. That’s not the door to mainstream adoption.

      • shadow9d9

        Wires= not fun. I’d rather worse graphics than wires.

        • Robbie Zeigler

          If your on a toaster sure.

    • NooYawker

      Who else can afford to sell these things at such a low price. They may even be selling it at a loss just to get those cameras into peoples homes. They make it up by scraping your personal data. But for any other company outside of Facebook and Google they have to sell at a profit.

      • MosBen

        I mean, maybe other companies can’t sell it for $400, but maybe the could sell it for $500. As for what companies could be possible entries, I’d guess other companies that have previously made HMDs, like Valve or HTC, or maybe a gaming company like Microsoft or Epic.

  • brubble

    Meh….and feh.

  • Forgetful

    You forgot the biggest setback of this headset. It requires you to have facebook account. Meaning you’re offsetting the headset’s cost with your own personal data.

    • This only annoys me because of the hassle and the likelihood the “social” crap will invade my headset at some point when I just don’t want to “socialize”. I have Facebook already, so I’ll sign up with it to use the headset, but I just want to be able to disable any “social” features after the initial setup.

      • sebrk

        Facebook isn’t a social network. It’s an ad network. That is what you will get eventually.

    • Gonzax

      For me a big setback is the lack of good audio or the narrow FOV or battery life. Having to use Facebook is no issue at all and I don’t understand what the problem is for people who don’t use Facebook. You can create an account and use it. No need to share your whole life with them, only what you want.

      • silvaring

        Except when you boot up that porn site of yours, and start browsing with their hand tracking and gaze tracking system. Yeah… that’s not sharing your personal life at all /s. Or how about every social conversation you have with another person while in VR, is that sharing your personal life?

        • Erilis

          Your porn preference really isn’t any useful information to anyone. If you are expecting a child then they will sell you diapers

          • benz145

            It definitely is useful information for ad targeting and I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if Facebook explicitly categorizes users based on sexual orientation. I’m not saying they watch your porn to make that determination, but there’s plenty revealed in porn habits that would benefit ad targeting.

          • Erilis

            Oh hey Ben. When I first moved to US to work as a fashion designer they got my profile down completely wrong. I think ones targeted profile starts from scratch when moving from Europe. I got years of ads with dating for bears and bars for cruising until they got their algorithms right about me. Sexual orientation is definitely already there in that secret Facebook profile for ads.

          • James Cobalt

            Facebook already categorizes users by sexual orientation. Even if you don’t state it on your Facebook profile, they try to infer it through your Likes, who you’re connected to, etc.

            There’s been blowback on it from multiple sides. Organizations offering services to LGBTQ were outraged when Facebook removed it as a targeting option – some of these companies were offering life-saving services. I believe the targeting option was put back shortly after, but then organizations protecting LGBTQ people were outraged how easy it was for companies and governments to link ad campaigns to individuals responding to the campaign (allowing for discrimination or worse).

      • sebrk

        Yeah as my how my house looks, what books I have, what XY I have and how my dick looks (yes VR porn is a thing). No thank you. It’s amazing how gullible every Facebook user seems to be.

        • Gonzax

          Facebook has absolutely no idea how my house looks, what books I read or how my penis is (I wouldn’t mind if they did, mind you, I have a big beautiful penis, very proud of it XD).

          • sebrk

            The whole premise of Facebooks existence and business is mapping your life down to atoms and sell the data to the highest bidder. It is almost as if you have not even read the stories/news about Facebook the last couple of years.

          • Gonzax

            I know, I have read all the stories but in all honesty I don’t care. I don’t share too much information and the one I do share is not that important. Google does the same, most companies do, maybe not as blatantly as Facebook but I can live with it. I also use Whatsapp every single day, which is another FB owned company. What should I do? stop using it in case they read my conversations with my girlfriend?
            I understand you, don’t get me wrong, I just don’t care about giving them that type of information, even less all the data about how I use my headset. I use Steam most of the time, anyway.

          • sebrk

            I have no problem with you having that stance except I think it is a bit sad and says pretty much where things are heading. It might seem like a small thing today but eventually our lives will get more and more digital and thus more and more controlled by companies like Facebook.

            They still track you when using Steam. That is just a presentation layer. Background processes will keep grinding your meta data. You can take that to the bank.

          • Gonzax

            I use a Index, I don’t know to what point the can track my Steam activity despite also having the Oculus software installed but even if they do my point is I don’t care about that type of data, I don’t care if they know I’ve been playing game A or game B, it’s not sensitive information for me.
            Other type of info is, of course, and privacy is a concern, but not using a new headset or not enjoying a game l love for fear of that is quite overkill in my opinion. I use Facebook every day, anyway. What I mean is that it can be annoying sometimes, just like Google and other services, but for me is not so annoying that I wouldn’t want to use their products.

          • sebrk

            Oh I thought you meant that you used the Quest running games from Steam.

            I’m sure they make the experience of using their services perfectly fine, or whatever the users require. Except they only do that when you are logged in. You cannot use Facebook while not being logged in. Guess why?

            Listen, I’m not going to tell you how to live your life. I am just very convinced that Facebook and data collection on individuals in general is not a positive thing and never will be.

          • silvaring

            It’s not annoying to you because you haven’t considered the new tracking technologies and their potential implications to our lives. Honestly, none of us know exactly how it will play out, but to deny these things present massive new powers to data companies is ridiculous.

          • I would really encourage you and everyone to go check out The Social Dilemma on Netflix. It’s a documentary that I think puts into words what we all have intrinsically known was an issue, but weren’t entirely sure why.
            Ultimately it’s not that Facebook knows everything about you. It’s that they use that data to psychologically manipulate you. To keep you emotionally engaged on the site (or their massive web of partner’s sites) so that they can expose you to more ads.
            Have you ever found yourself in an internet tangent hole and next thing you know hours have passed you by? And most of that time was spent consuming trivial content that doesn’t add much value to your life.
            And that’s with a small rectangle you can put down at any time, what could these companies do with an always on, always engaged MR headset? VR is still young enough and simple enough, it can’t really do much except offer you fun games to play, but when your life depends on owning a headset, we’ll be at the mercy of these companies and their business practices.

        • Marcin Dmochowski

          You’ll know they check your dick if you suddenly start getting more “enlarge your penis” ads ;)

      • Marcin Dmochowski

        I don’t know if there’s any overreacting when it comes to social media companies – they’re evil, no doubt about it. Especially FB. They use that information not to do good, but for their own profit and also political reasons. With that being said, if you only use your FB account for VR, what will they know about you? Your gaming preferences? Porn preferences? You still don’t give them your precise location, your daily habits, your political views, how your meals look like or how many pets and kids you have.
        Now, regarding the pass through cameras image – this needs to be closely looked at. Check the EULA if they can send images from that cameras, check what kind of information is being sent by headset to Marks office. I’m sure we’ll see more articles about this, and I do hope someone does a through investigation on that topic, and keeps an eye on them to make sure they don’t suddenly turn on spying.

    • benz145

      Now that Facebook is more deeply woven into the core Quest operating system, you’re required to log into Quest 2 with a Facebook account.

    • Lucidfeuer

      The biggest? Yes it is one of the biggest…their lenses is also a huge fucking issue on all Oculuses…as well as the incredibly stupid strap and archaic hand-tracking when there’s the ultraleap standard.

    • Dan

      Do you use Google for anything? They are just as bad!

    • Seadna Smallwood

      He didn’t forget that. You just didn’t read the article! It’s in there.

  • Kyokushin

    And what about FoV?

    • Kevin White


    • Bob

      The same as the Original Quest.

      Your personal thoughts on this Ben? Felt larger, smaller, or the same?

      • ihearthshark

        I would like to know the same.

      • benz145

        Feels the same, unless you’re using the widest IPD setting, then you’re likely to see a bit of clipping on the outer edges.

    • TechPassion

      the same as it was

    • Cole Park

      It’s probably prudent not to expect larger FOV until Facebook is ready to ship new lense technology, aka something other than fresnel lenses. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised to be stuck with 90-100 degree FOV until 2025…

  • 3872Orcs

    So games need to support 90hz for it to run in that mode? What about games running from the steam library? Are those dependent on the link cable getting support for 90hz?

    • Cless

      Cable runs at 72Hz until an “update after launch” they said so… No.

  • Lee Swain

    No expandable storage is BS! Extra $100 to go up to as little as 256gb when SD cards cost next to nothing!

    • Shy Guy

      At least it’s $100/£100/100€ for an extra 192GB this time, not $100 for an extra 64GB like on the original. Still an SD card slot like on most phones and Nintendo Switch would be really nice to have, and easy to achieve.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    Next month it will be a quest 2 and the 3070 card.Total of 800 and in October.Praise Jesus !

    • Cless

      You will pair a 3070 with a Quest 2…? That seems kind of wasteful, why not getting the Index at that point?

      • shadow9d9


      • dk

        because the q2 is 2 in one/wireless/less then 1/3 of the price …..but sure index and g2 have some great features

    • dk

      yep that’s what Jesus died for XD

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    The Quest 2 is great, and if they dared to sell it in Germany, I would have already preordered it. I am still amazed that they manage to sell it at such a low price. But my hopes for better ergonomics are a little bit crushed.

    Rumours said it would be (a lot) lighter, and everybody mentions that the weight went down from 571g to 503g. This is very welcome, as the Quest 1 was very front heavy and the Quest 2 default strap now puts even more pressure on the face. But I wonder how much of the weight loss is simply due to reducing the stiffer head strap with a fabric one. The Quest 2 without any strap might actually be heavier than the Quest 1, so ergonomically it could be much worse. Could somebody please weigh Quest 1 and 2 without the straps attached and post the results?

    I very much welcome the Elite strip, but it sort of boils down to the Quest 2 being about as heavy and expensive as the Quest 1 with this strap for at least comparable comfort. Still amazing, but at least for me the Quest 1 was very uncomfortable, esp. for longer sessions, mostly due to the heavy weight pressing into the face, and I really hoped that this would be improved.

    • Bob

      The elite strap provides a bit of weight at the back of the head and cusps the back of your skull which should to some extent counter the weight of the headset itself.

      The elite with battery should reinforce this weight distribution further. Best thing to do is to remove the straps from both headsets and then measure them but you’ll have to wait a few more weeks before you can do it yourself provided you have the original Quest.

  • Ad
    • VR5

      Same guy also gave a very negative review to HL: Alyx. And he was about the only one out of the early reviews to do so too. Everyone else was raving for Alyx, just like everyone else is praising Quest 2 now.

      • brubble

        Thankfully I missed that Q2 bandwagon.

        • VR5

          What do you mean by that? How does it relate to what I posted?

          • brubble

            Reviews are subjective, Reviews can be and are skewed or bought and paid.

          • VR5

            Do you have evidence for a bought review? If yes, for how many? Are you claiming RoadToVR received money for this review?

            How it is subjective and the negative one more objective? How are the numerous other reviews subjective? Point it out with examples.

            “Could be bought”, “anything is subjective”, statements like these don’t prove anything. Do the work. Substantiate your claims.

          • brubble

            Steam has some new VR wank games that are probably right up your alley.

      • Bob

        I wouldn’t take Sam on Ars seriously to be honest.

        His past reviews were usually skewed toward negativity regardless of the quality of the product. The man is need of some antidepressants.

        • VR5

          I would rather not make assumptions about his personal situation but I agree that he is lacking objectivity and imposes his own opinion on readers rather than sticking to the data and letting the reader form their own decision.

  • JasonBSteele

    “discontinuation of the entire Rift product line shows they don’t have much interest in PC-based VR any longer.”

    I’m surprised by that conclusion, I see it as not seeing the point in PC only.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Well, you knew already they ditched the Rift and put all their resources on the Quest, as the Rift S was already completely sourced out to Lenovo and was in reality just a Lenovo headset with an Oculus brand slapped onto it..
      But I can understand why they go this route, it’s THE route to go for the long run, as VR needs to be wireless anyway, and Facebook is targeting the regular crowd, not the enthusiasts who spend a lot of money on a powerfull GPU/CPU. Maybe the RTX3090 is finally capable of driving 4k per eye with AAA graphics at ultra settings at 90Hz..

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    “Right now the PCVR Link experience isn’t much different than what you’d get with the original Quest. At present, Quest 2 with Link is still running at 72Hz rather than 90Hz, and its video encoding hasn’t been optimized for Quest 2’s resolution. Oculus says it plans to make those updates “soon” after the launch of the headset.”

    ZUCK:“We don’t give a flying F… about PCVR users. Adopt to new reality of FO”:(

    • sfmike

      He doesn’t see a good enough profit ratio so is not interested. That’s how capitalism works. He is already putting most of his development time and money into an AR product that doesn’t exit and look annoying anyway but the lure of those future elusive billions is what makes billionaires tick. You can never be rich enough.

  • blue5peed

    I’m speechless this headset is amazing, the price is unreal and it looks so cool with the Elite strap too!

  • sfmike

    I was surprised that their presentation today was more interested in AR development to compete with whatever Apple is currently working on than VR which kind of took a backseat. So many people worried about privacy and Facebook should be worried that they are so focused on glasses that keep you connected to their data gathering throughout your entire day. Love the Oculus 2 but not impressed by their presentation today at all.

    • Rogue Transfer

      AR Glasses is what Facebook have always been aiming for. VR was just a way to learn and kickstart the technology & market. We’ll likely see Facebook migrate away from VR headsets over the next 5~10 years to AR glasses only. That’s where everything fits in with Mark’s vision of always on, holograms of people and analysis of you and the world around you.

    • Lucidfeuer

      It doesn’t matter, neither of them will succeed. If you thought Microsoft was too early, given how stalling the VR headset segment is, AR Glasses will be their biggest failure to date.

  • Nothing to see here

    The missing piece is the wireless link. No mention was made of the kind of WiFi supported by the Quest 2 but I imagine it would need WiFi 6E for best performance.

    • Engineer_92

      Just like with the OG Quest, I am sure Quest 2 potential will be unlocked further down the road with the XR2 chip.

    • dk

      it’s wifi6 not 6e

  • Really hoping they get that full Link PC VR support at 90Hz and the like asap.

  • Ratm

    That real word camera is the best thing on it.
    People will find the trash can to drop this in no time.

  • JB1968

    Isn’t great to have near 2k resoution for almost the same mobile grade graphics? LOL

    So basically Quest2 is only a good choice for broke PC flat players that want to try VR.

    Well, Facebook is kiling it :-))

  • sebrk

    I wonder if sideloading stuff also requires a login. That is; if the device will even boot up completely without a login or if it all becomes just a brick without the login. I’m never ever going to get a Facebook account for this. I really hope some else will fill this golden hole in the VR market now.

    • ArtemiyNeko

      Sideloading requires login. Booting into the system in general requires login, can’t do a thing without a Facebook account.

      In fact, sideloading will apparently require a real phone number and/or credit card to be added to Facebook.

      • sebrk

        May I ask how you know these details already?

        Regardless I could have guessed it. With Facebook nothing really surprises me anymore. It’s a mystery how Abrash and Carmack still work for this company in so many ways.

        • ArtemiyNeko

          From the various reviews and from https://developer.oculus.com/faqs/

          Carmack seems to be in a consulting role now, he doesn’t really work full time for Facebook’s VR division anymore

  • Erilis

    Does anyone have an account at arstechnica ? Can someone log in and tell them they are a bunch of arses, I was about to but noticed they weren’t using discus. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/review-we-do-not-recommend-the-299-oculus-quest-2-as-your-next-vr-system/

    • Andrew Jakobs

      yeah, they really have a piss-grave-negative review. Everyting about their ‘review’ drips with negativity and not a realistic and honest review.

      • Erilis

        yeah right! It’s pretty much any VR review I’ve seen from them. I don’t know why they keep sending them headsets to review.
        I know I shouldn’t say too much until i tried it myself, but it sounds to me like he had a bad session with beat saber and he thinks the controller is faulty, and the game seems the same, and the head strap is flimsy. I don’t even think he likes VR

  • Ace of Spadеs

    What do you think? Is there a need to get the 256GB version instead the cheaper 64gb?

    I honestly just want a tethered solution for PC, but with better chip-set this HMD might have nice looking games, still not PC or even PS4 quality

    • benz145

      If you think you’d be using the headset two or three years from now, I think you’ll want the 256GB version. Right now you can get away with 64GB, but three years out the games will be larger and the core OS will take up more space.

      • Ace of Spadеs

        Thats logical. im still waiting for “THE ONE”, i have Rift S, new, played maybe a total of 2-3 hours with it, wasn’t wowed by graphics even with upscaling on 2080TI, before I had PSVR on PS4PRO, also played 2 games, the OLED screen was good but resolution was too low and gamepads pure puke.

        But Quest 2 has 3.5 Million pixels vs. Rift S with 1.84, so it may wow me, but on the other side HP Reverb 2 has 4.66 Million pixels.

        Maybe I should just spend the money on Reverb 2? My main issue is that it comes with Microsoft gamepads which kinda meh, now?

        • shadow9d9

          Wires vs not wires.

      • Bob

        “If you think you’d be using the headset two or three years from now”

        Unlikely since by then Quest 4 would be out with an XR4 chip at $99.

  • Lucidfeuer

    So Facebook has managed to do what Apple has been doing: pressuring medias and journalists into making disguised advertisement as reviews. I will be searching for another website for VR reviews.

  • The usual great review, Ben!

  • 144Hz

    A facebook account is now required which is a shame. You can’t even watch vr pron in peace without peeping tom Zuckerberg recording your stroke techniques.

  • Maxx

    If you are interested. Here is a review that really breaks down the Quest 2, and it’s not all rosy. Quest 2 only has one lcd screen.


    • dk

      yep it’s hillarious

  • LordBiscuits

    I’m looking to get one of these when they’re released, but I’m wondering about the batteries. I haven’t owned a VR headset before so I don’t know what’s normal here.

    Are they rechargeable, removable, AA size or what? If it’s the former, can I plug a battery pack in to the headset whilst playing to charge whilst using it?

    Might be a dumb question, but first time purchaser so…

  • Ad

    Fingers crossed that people simply don’t care and this doesn’t sell well.

  • gothicvillas

    Boring. Another rehashed old article. Yawn.

  • Bram

    I tested the quest 2 yesterday. The higher resolution is a step forward but the very poor black levels are a big step backwards. Especially in dark areas like in a bigscreen cinema hall, you will notice everything is suddenly very grey, like a mist hanging around. In such an environment it is very destructive for the sense of realism. Hope future vr headsets will return to oleds soon or at least have lcds with much better blacks.

  • I can’t even use my Quest 2 because the “Oculus” app is not letting me sign in with the Facebook account it forced me to link it to. So my device is just a very expensive paperweight until that issue gets sorted, which will apparently take around 70 hours. This is why forcing us to use mandatory Facebook accounts just to use the device really is bad news and very insidious and worrying; I mean you can’t even check out the offline Home menu or system settings until you connect your Facebook account and also pair the thing with App on your phone. What a f’n joke! I honestly hope someone brings a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for this horrible abuse of our rights to use the basic features of the product we have paid our hard-earned money for.

    I am not happy about this at all.

  • Ace of Spades

    I had pre-order on day one, t hen 2 weeks later canceled it.

    The Tethered performance is still horrible, compressed, low resolution and even worse then Rift S that has lower resolution screen.

    When they eventually fix it and make it run full resolution, full frame rate and no visible compression, i might consider it.
    Right now the best Commercial HMD on planer earth is IMO HP G2

  • Palitodelospalotes

    I will first need to be sure the link mode is substantially better, like full 90hertz and full resolution otherwise I am not interested at all.

    I think in terms o resolution and image quality this could be a nice upgrade from the Oculus Rift 1, considering the price (someone please correct me if I am wrong)

    But I need that link to work as good as Rift does.

  • Pulstar44

    I don’t agree with most of the reviews out there. I have an ipd of 70. When I set the ipd two number three which is 68 I can see the outside flat edges of the screen. It’s like having blinders on. And the field of view is smaller on this headset. with a quest one I could get it closer to my eyes and have a bigger field of view and never see the edges of the screen. None of the reviews seem to mention these issues at all. And the blacks are terrible on this headset compared to the old one. So if you’re buying it just know what you’re getting in to.

  • h4rr4r

    If you at a 63IPD can’t accommodate for 58mm, something is wrong.

  • Paul Acosta

    This is the best VR headset to play VR porn games too. Light and easy to set up with great resolution. My favorite for everything by far, even now one year later!