4 ms·

As somebody who isn't super in the loop about VR headsets, is this $1500 headset 3.75x better than the $400 one? Why or why not?

smoldesu 4y ago
Not really. In fact, if you put aside the standalone features, this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index. If you do consider the standalone functionality, the internals are hardly an upgrade over the Quest 2. Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  For anybody super out of the loop: > The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire. The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Sorry I didn't exactly come in at the base-level here :p The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head. TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
    - jandrese 4y ago
      IMHO the wireless is a killer feature. Having cables attached seriously limits your design space for games. Room scale is a lot less practical because you can get tangled up in the cables. VR is best when you're not sitting in a chair and can move freely, even if you're stuck in a small area. Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
    - creativemonkeys 4y ago
      In Lex Fridman's podcast, Carmack says he's officially only working 1 day at Meta in advisory capacity, though sometimes chimes in on other days as well. He also says he wants to completely focus on AGI, so I wouldn't rely on Carmack to push the VR field forward in the near future.
      - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
        What's AGI in this context?
        MikusR 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intellige...
        govg 4y ago
        I believe Artificial General Intelligence [0]. [0] - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-raises-20-million-from-sequoia-nat-friedman-and-others/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-rais...
        zh3 4y ago
        Artificial General intelligence
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
      > No PC required, no cables, no nothing. Slight nitpick/question: if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
- nomel 4y ago
  > this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index Could you expand on this? Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work. 1. Through the lens: https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199 https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    It depends on how you want to argue. For me, refresh rate and FOV matter most. Low refresh headsets make me nauseated, and the Quest 1 can easily start to verge on that sickness after 30 minutes to an hour of playtime. The Index did a good job at mitigating that sickness feeling, and the FOV seems very desirable if people want to use these headsets as monitor replacements.
    - nomel 4y ago
      Quest 1 hasn't been sold in over two years, so I'm not sure it's a good benchmark. The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes. 1. https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/ https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/ 2. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_po...
      - MikusR 4y ago
        Unfortunately Quest Pro is 72hz with an option of 90hz. No 120hz.
jayd16 4y ago
Depends on how you value pass through MR features, face/expression tracking, and removing controller dead zones.
erikpukinskis 4y ago
It has eye tracking which IMO is a game changer for business use. Eye contact is the killer app for VR workplaces.
fomine3 4y ago
Quest 2 is a steal deal, so it's really not a good comparison target.

smoldesu 4y ago

Not really. In fact, if you put aside the standalone features, this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index. If you do consider the standalone functionality, the internals are hardly an upgrade over the Quest 2. Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
For anybody super out of the loop: > The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire. The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Sorry I didn't exactly come in at the base-level here :p The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head. TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    IMHO the wireless is a killer feature. Having cables attached seriously limits your design space for games. Room scale is a lot less practical because you can get tangled up in the cables. VR is best when you're not sitting in a chair and can move freely, even if you're stuck in a small area. Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
  - creativemonkeys 4y ago
    In Lex Fridman's podcast, Carmack says he's officially only working 1 day at Meta in advisory capacity, though sometimes chimes in on other days as well. He also says he wants to completely focus on AGI, so I wouldn't rely on Carmack to push the VR field forward in the near future.
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
      What's AGI in this context?
      - MikusR 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intellige...
      - govg 4y ago
        I believe Artificial General Intelligence [0]. [0] - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-raises-20-million-from-sequoia-nat-friedman-and-others/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-rais...
      - zh3 4y ago
        Artificial General intelligence
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    > No PC required, no cables, no nothing. Slight nitpick/question: if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
nomel 4y ago
> this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index Could you expand on this? Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work. 1. Through the lens: https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199 https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It depends on how you want to argue. For me, refresh rate and FOV matter most. Low refresh headsets make me nauseated, and the Quest 1 can easily start to verge on that sickness after 30 minutes to an hour of playtime. The Index did a good job at mitigating that sickness feeling, and the FOV seems very desirable if people want to use these headsets as monitor replacements.
  - nomel 4y ago
    Quest 1 hasn't been sold in over two years, so I'm not sure it's a good benchmark. The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes. 1. https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/ https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/ 2. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_po...
    - MikusR 4y ago
      Unfortunately Quest Pro is 72hz with an option of 90hz. No 120hz.

jayd16 4y ago

Depends on how you value pass through MR features, face/expression tracking, and removing controller dead zones.

erikpukinskis 4y ago

It has eye tracking which IMO is a game changer for business use. Eye contact is the killer app for VR workplaces.

fomine3 4y ago

Quest 2 is a steal deal, so it's really not a good comparison target.