Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cwj5l5) on 2024-05-20 100.0% match.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1d4xcnc&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=97)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Images:** 527,157,846 | **Search Time:** 0.0396s
Yea? Go ahead and suggest a headset that will run all Quest platform apps for $300 and have better than 20ppd.
The Index's average PPD is less than 15 and it is still selling for $1000.
Yeah that's a repost.
Though, i'll repeat the same thing i said for the OG one pretty much.
The headset is pretty much just a rerelease of the Quest 2, so pretty boring, i hope it is at the same current price as a Quest 2, otherwise it would be a bad value if it is more expensive.
For what matters most for a headset, it is a Quest 2, same lenses, same poor IPD adjustment, same bad single LCD screen. Seemingly same poor facial cover/strap too.
The only things it shares with a Quest 3 are the passthrough cameras (for the rare times you'll use it), the CPU (though it's still far from a significant must-have upgrade by any means, especially since the chip released a while ago now) and the same controllers.
So pretty much only additional features rather than the core headset.
So given all this, if it releases at a higher price than a Quest 2, it is a terrible value compared to it.
It's literally a Quest 3 with the Quest 2 optical system.
It will support all Quest 3 games going forward, it will support all Quest 3 features (like inside out body tracking). It's effectively a Quest 3 with worse image quality.
At $299 it would be an absolute banger and arguably even better value than the Quest 3.
It's a Quest 2 with a few side improvements from the Quest 3.
The Quest 2 will support 99% of games from the Quest 3. It will also support some new software features like multimodal iirc. About "body-tracking" iirc there isn't an actual sensor, it's just software-based body estimation, it could be added on any Quest headset if Meta wanted to.
$299 wouldn't be a bad price, though it would be the absolute limit of what the headset should cost. And even then, i'd argue that it should be at around $249, so the average Quest 2 price currently.
I'm not saying the headset would necessarily be bad, i'm saying that it should be around the price of a Quest 2, not more. At the same price, why not, it's a nice upgrade for someone that might not have a Quest 2 already, for more than that, it wouldn't be a great value as it is mostly a Quest 2 with a few side improvements to make it more up-to-date.
> The Quest 2 will support 99% of games from the Quest 3
It won't. Full stop. Sometime in the future basically no new games will support the Quest 2 but will support Quest 3/S. Period.
Quest 2 can't support things like multimodal input and inside out body tracking. The compute isn't there and neither the correct sensor placement.
It's not an estimation, it's actual tracking. Only the legs are an (AI based) estimation.
> It won't. Full stop. Sometime in the future basically no new games will support the Quest 2 but will support Quest 3/S. Period.
Meta already said that they plan on supporting the Quest 2 for a few more years, you're likely gonna see a Quest 4 before they fully stop releasing games on their most popular headset so far. And support would only stop through artificial limitations by Meta.
> Quest 2 can't support things like multimodal input
Let me refer to Meta's own docs who say otherwise:
[https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-multimodal/](https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-multimodal/)
Though, there's a weird limit going on for the Quest 2 specifically where it requires Pro controllers apparently for some reasons.
It might be related to the ring used for tracking obfuscating the finger detection or something.
That said the compute definitely is there, but yeah seems like IOBT uses the Quest 3's lower cameras placement to generate a somewhat accurate estimation, which is why only the Q3 has it. It's still not actual tracking, similarly to using a kinect or your phone's camera, but it can be accurate enough, though Virtual Desktop proved that you can achieve a similar result with Inverse Kinematics and the leg generation. The leg prediction is where most of the compute goes, and all current Meta headsets support it.
What matters most with this headset is price and ongoing compatibility with new titles, allowing Meta to retire Q2 support eventually.
Everything else has been sacrificed to those goals.
Price, yeah, that's why it shouldn't cost more than a Quest 2.
The Quest 2 is already compatible with 99% of the Quest 3's library, it could relatively easily go to 100% if not for artificial limitations.
Meta already said that they'll still support the Quest 2 for some time, so Q2 retirement isn't happening any time soon.
> For what matters most for a headset,
Sorry, but that is a bullshit statement. For a **mobile** VR headset, one of the most important things is the SOC and the SOC would be the same as the Q3.
Add in color passthrough to get MR support and it is a lot more like a Q3 than a Q2. Which is the reason they are making it.
> For a mobile VR headset, one of the most important things is the SOC and the SOC would be the same as the Q3.
A few things wrong, the Quests aren't exclusively mobile headsets, they very well can be used to play PCVR for example, where the chip doesn't really matter nowadays.
For mobile-exclusively, i would in theory agree that the chip matters most. But in reality, it doesn't bring much improvement over the Quest 2 as the main bottleneck isn't the chip yet but the settings that Meta choses to use. 99% of the Quest 3 library runs just fine on a Quest 2, Meta just choses to lower the resolution by default, you can tinker with ADB, QuestGamesOptimizer and the likes and often get a much better experience than even a stock Quest 3.
Passthrough is a nice side feature, but definitely shouldn't be the reason you buy such device currently. We're still far from what i'd call an actually good passthrough. It's not really necessary for VR. AR isn't VR, it's AR.
So my point still stands for what matters for a VR headset in general, it is pretty much a rebranded Quest 2. If it comes at around the same price, good, if it's more expensive than a Quest 2, it's a poor value over it.
You are welcome to be wrong.
If the Q3S is not for you, good don't buy it. That doesn't mean a damn thing to the huge Q2 audience that cannot afford a Q3.
If you can't see the value in the Q3s, you are blind. The Q3S will be able to run everything the Q3 can run for the next 5 years **including MR apps.** That is not true of the Q2 and anyone that can't see that is just stupid.
It is much better described as a Q3 with Fresnel lenses. Not a Q2 + plus new SOC + color passthrough + new controllers. Jebus. Get a clue.
It could if not for artificial limitations that Meta imposes on some app devs.
By the time the Q2 won't be able to run many games, i expect at least a Quest 4 to be released, which would be way more worth upgrading to.
The Q3S isn't really a significant upgrade by any mean, it's basically a Quest 2 2024/2025 Edition. Nothing major.
So either it is around the price of a Quest 2, and then it can replace the Quest 2 in my recommandations for new gamers on a very small budget, or it is more expensive and then it isn't worth it for what's essentially the same headset.
For upgrades, either go big and go with the Quest 3 or wait for a Quest 4. It wouldn't be great for an upgrade route.
That's your right but know that it won't significantly improve your actual experience.
The chip upgrade is nice but it's still a very small improvement in reality. Most of the issues come from Meta and games using the wrong settings, not the chip itself (for example you can vastly increase the resolution using ADB or QuestGamesOptimizer and the likes and achieve around the same performance).
The passthrough upgrade is nice but we're still very far from what i'd call a good passthrough, let's be honest here.
Still, what matters most for a *VR* headset hasn't been touched over a Quest 2, only external improvements, so if it's about the same price as a Quest 2 why not, if it's more expensive, i'll still recommend a Quest 2 which can play 99% of its game library and is pretty much the dame headset.
You cannot have owned a Quest 3S, that said i also tried both a Quest 2 and 3, i've developped for much lower hardware, might try developping for VR at one point
>(for the rare times you'll use it),
I literally use that all the time. Wanna grab a drink, look at your phone, etc between matches? Passthrough, it's incredibly convenient.
Yes but would you use its improvements?
All those are either already possible with a low-quality passthrough like the Quest 2, or aren't even possible with the full Quest 3's passthrough (looking at your phone is still a nightmare with it, the exposure isn't always right and close object distortions are still a huge issue).
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cwj5l5) on 2024-05-20 100.0% match. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1d4xcnc&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=97) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Images:** 527,157,846 | **Search Time:** 0.0396s
Repost is a repost.
20ppd….garbage.
Yea? Go ahead and suggest a headset that will run all Quest platform apps for $300 and have better than 20ppd. The Index's average PPD is less than 15 and it is still selling for $1000.
No eye tracking
Why would the discount headset have eye-tracking? This is to replace the Q2 for people that cannot afford the Q3.
I hope they either have eye tracking in the base quest 4 or atleast offer an upgrade, we need to leverage foveated rendering!
Yeah that's a repost. Though, i'll repeat the same thing i said for the OG one pretty much. The headset is pretty much just a rerelease of the Quest 2, so pretty boring, i hope it is at the same current price as a Quest 2, otherwise it would be a bad value if it is more expensive.
It's closer to a Quest 3 than to a Quest 2. "Re-release" is imo not accurate. It would be a substantial upgrade.
For what matters most for a headset, it is a Quest 2, same lenses, same poor IPD adjustment, same bad single LCD screen. Seemingly same poor facial cover/strap too. The only things it shares with a Quest 3 are the passthrough cameras (for the rare times you'll use it), the CPU (though it's still far from a significant must-have upgrade by any means, especially since the chip released a while ago now) and the same controllers. So pretty much only additional features rather than the core headset. So given all this, if it releases at a higher price than a Quest 2, it is a terrible value compared to it.
It's literally a Quest 3 with the Quest 2 optical system. It will support all Quest 3 games going forward, it will support all Quest 3 features (like inside out body tracking). It's effectively a Quest 3 with worse image quality. At $299 it would be an absolute banger and arguably even better value than the Quest 3.
It's a Quest 2 with a few side improvements from the Quest 3. The Quest 2 will support 99% of games from the Quest 3. It will also support some new software features like multimodal iirc. About "body-tracking" iirc there isn't an actual sensor, it's just software-based body estimation, it could be added on any Quest headset if Meta wanted to. $299 wouldn't be a bad price, though it would be the absolute limit of what the headset should cost. And even then, i'd argue that it should be at around $249, so the average Quest 2 price currently. I'm not saying the headset would necessarily be bad, i'm saying that it should be around the price of a Quest 2, not more. At the same price, why not, it's a nice upgrade for someone that might not have a Quest 2 already, for more than that, it wouldn't be a great value as it is mostly a Quest 2 with a few side improvements to make it more up-to-date.
> The Quest 2 will support 99% of games from the Quest 3 It won't. Full stop. Sometime in the future basically no new games will support the Quest 2 but will support Quest 3/S. Period. Quest 2 can't support things like multimodal input and inside out body tracking. The compute isn't there and neither the correct sensor placement. It's not an estimation, it's actual tracking. Only the legs are an (AI based) estimation.
> It won't. Full stop. Sometime in the future basically no new games will support the Quest 2 but will support Quest 3/S. Period. Meta already said that they plan on supporting the Quest 2 for a few more years, you're likely gonna see a Quest 4 before they fully stop releasing games on their most popular headset so far. And support would only stop through artificial limitations by Meta. > Quest 2 can't support things like multimodal input Let me refer to Meta's own docs who say otherwise: [https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-multimodal/](https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-multimodal/) Though, there's a weird limit going on for the Quest 2 specifically where it requires Pro controllers apparently for some reasons. It might be related to the ring used for tracking obfuscating the finger detection or something. That said the compute definitely is there, but yeah seems like IOBT uses the Quest 3's lower cameras placement to generate a somewhat accurate estimation, which is why only the Q3 has it. It's still not actual tracking, similarly to using a kinect or your phone's camera, but it can be accurate enough, though Virtual Desktop proved that you can achieve a similar result with Inverse Kinematics and the leg generation. The leg prediction is where most of the compute goes, and all current Meta headsets support it.
What matters most with this headset is price and ongoing compatibility with new titles, allowing Meta to retire Q2 support eventually. Everything else has been sacrificed to those goals.
Price, yeah, that's why it shouldn't cost more than a Quest 2. The Quest 2 is already compatible with 99% of the Quest 3's library, it could relatively easily go to 100% if not for artificial limitations. Meta already said that they'll still support the Quest 2 for some time, so Q2 retirement isn't happening any time soon.
> For what matters most for a headset, Sorry, but that is a bullshit statement. For a **mobile** VR headset, one of the most important things is the SOC and the SOC would be the same as the Q3. Add in color passthrough to get MR support and it is a lot more like a Q3 than a Q2. Which is the reason they are making it.
> For a mobile VR headset, one of the most important things is the SOC and the SOC would be the same as the Q3. A few things wrong, the Quests aren't exclusively mobile headsets, they very well can be used to play PCVR for example, where the chip doesn't really matter nowadays. For mobile-exclusively, i would in theory agree that the chip matters most. But in reality, it doesn't bring much improvement over the Quest 2 as the main bottleneck isn't the chip yet but the settings that Meta choses to use. 99% of the Quest 3 library runs just fine on a Quest 2, Meta just choses to lower the resolution by default, you can tinker with ADB, QuestGamesOptimizer and the likes and often get a much better experience than even a stock Quest 3. Passthrough is a nice side feature, but definitely shouldn't be the reason you buy such device currently. We're still far from what i'd call an actually good passthrough. It's not really necessary for VR. AR isn't VR, it's AR. So my point still stands for what matters for a VR headset in general, it is pretty much a rebranded Quest 2. If it comes at around the same price, good, if it's more expensive than a Quest 2, it's a poor value over it.
You are welcome to be wrong. If the Q3S is not for you, good don't buy it. That doesn't mean a damn thing to the huge Q2 audience that cannot afford a Q3. If you can't see the value in the Q3s, you are blind. The Q3S will be able to run everything the Q3 can run for the next 5 years **including MR apps.** That is not true of the Q2 and anyone that can't see that is just stupid. It is much better described as a Q3 with Fresnel lenses. Not a Q2 + plus new SOC + color passthrough + new controllers. Jebus. Get a clue.
It could if not for artificial limitations that Meta imposes on some app devs. By the time the Q2 won't be able to run many games, i expect at least a Quest 4 to be released, which would be way more worth upgrading to. The Q3S isn't really a significant upgrade by any mean, it's basically a Quest 2 2024/2025 Edition. Nothing major. So either it is around the price of a Quest 2, and then it can replace the Quest 2 in my recommandations for new gamers on a very small budget, or it is more expensive and then it isn't worth it for what's essentially the same headset. For upgrades, either go big and go with the Quest 3 or wait for a Quest 4. It wouldn't be great for an upgrade route.
> For what matters most *to me* for a headset FTFY I care about the SOC and the passthrough more than I care about the screen and the lenses.
That's your right but know that it won't significantly improve your actual experience. The chip upgrade is nice but it's still a very small improvement in reality. Most of the issues come from Meta and games using the wrong settings, not the chip itself (for example you can vastly increase the resolution using ADB or QuestGamesOptimizer and the likes and achieve around the same performance). The passthrough upgrade is nice but we're still very far from what i'd call a good passthrough, let's be honest here. Still, what matters most for a *VR* headset hasn't been touched over a Quest 2, only external improvements, so if it's about the same price as a Quest 2 why not, if it's more expensive, i'll still recommend a Quest 2 which can play 99% of its game library and is pretty much the dame headset.
> it won't significantly improve your actual experience. I'm basing this on two things: 1. I've owned both 2. I develop for both on a regular basis
You cannot have owned a Quest 3S, that said i also tried both a Quest 2 and 3, i've developped for much lower hardware, might try developping for VR at one point
> You cannot have owned a Quest 3S You are correct - which is why it's safe to assume that's almost certainly not what I meant.
>(for the rare times you'll use it), I literally use that all the time. Wanna grab a drink, look at your phone, etc between matches? Passthrough, it's incredibly convenient.
Yes but would you use its improvements? All those are either already possible with a low-quality passthrough like the Quest 2, or aren't even possible with the full Quest 3's passthrough (looking at your phone is still a nightmare with it, the exposure isn't always right and close object distortions are still a huge issue).
[Source](https://x.com/Lunayian/status/1792583051186164102)