• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Zuckerberg Confirms Meta Quest 3 VR Headset Will Have Full Colour Mixed Reality

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2023/02/...-headset-will-have-full-colour-mixed-reality/
Mark Zuckerberg said in a recent earnings call that Meta’s next consumer oriented headset, speculated to be the Meta Quest 3, will include full colour mixed reality features. This could be a major shift in the VR industry and the company’s continuing fascination with shared virtual spaces.

In his conference call with investors last Thursday, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “later this year,” the company would release its next-generation consumer headset, which will be much cheaper than the Quest Pro and yet still feature Meta Reality, the same feature used on the Meta Quest Pro to allow full-colour passthrough video.


Meta first showed off its $US1,500 ($2,082) Meta Quest Pro during its last Connect conference and made a point of its upgraded outward facing cameras, which allow users to see colour footage of their environment in real time. Of course, the Pro’s external video itself is somewhat limited and grainy. If that bothers you, then there’s not much more functionality for the current iteration of the passthrough tech other than helping you avoid stubbing your toe on any wayward desk feet.

None of Zuckerberg’s comments explicitly mention the expected “Quest 3” headset, but he did clarify that he’s talking about a consumer option here. As noted by TechRadar, Zuckerberg told Stratechery last year that the upcoming Quest 3 device will cost between $US300 ($416), $US400 ($555), or $US500 ($694), meaning it will likely be sticking to the entry level line of VR headsets, but this latest mention could be a hint that Meta wants to generate more buzz around mixed reality, AKA a combination of augmented and virtual reality tech.

None of Zuck’s comments point to what software capabilities the next Quest device might have. But the Meta CEO remains bullish on mixed reality tech. He said “The value of MR is that you can experience the immersion and presence of VR while still being grounded in the physical world around you.” He added “I expect that this is going to establish this technology as the baseline for all headsets going forward, and eventually of course for AR glasses as well.


Last year, Meta bumped up the price of its 128GB and 256GB Quest 2 versions by $US100 ($139), to $US399 ($554) and $US499 ($693), respectively. This latest news from Meta’s top metaverse proponent only helps reinforce that the company is continuing to frame the Quest series as the most mainstream way to access a VR experience. If it starts putting in MR capabilities as well, it would set itself apart from most other headsets currently available that don’t cost well over $US1,000 ($1,388).

But as it stands, Meta is not facing nearly as much competition for similarly priced entry-level VR. Pico, owned by China-based ByteDance, revealed the $US425 ($590) Pico 4 last year, though the device is still unavailable in the U.S. market. Sony’s upcoming PlayStation VR2 is priced at $US550 ($764), though out of the box it is only compatible with the PS5. Some people will certainly find ways to get the device to work on PC, but according to Bloomberg, PSVR 2 sales expectations are far below what the company anticipated, though Sony has refuted those claims.

It looks like Quest 3 will have full color passthrough. No eye tracking or face tracking however.

Also the Quest 3 will cost between $300-500, likely across all it's models.
 
I'm still using an original Quest, but I have been thinking about getting a Quest 2. I guess I will likely wait a bit and see if more news starts to come out about a Quest 3.

I've finally started using my Quest a lot more recently, although not for gaming very much.
 

SLB1904

Banned
I'm curious to see how much powerful it will be compared to quest 2. Let's see if pushes the games a little further.

But sounds like their priorities are beyond games
 

Buggy Loop

Member
No eye tracking or face tracking however.

Disappointing



I don't get it, they showcased the tech years ago themselves.

Their whole meta verse is supposed to also eventually integrate with facial expression to your avatar, again requiring face capture and thus eye tracking.




Unless they found some weird quirk that like... it doesn't track asian eyes well and they don't want to be racist? LOL
 
Last edited:

Crayon

Member
You think they would have had eye tracking for their metaverse. Even if it wasn't fast enough to do active fr. Go check out VR chat and see the difference it makes in a social space. It's night and day.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
Color passthrough is one of the main features I'm really looking forward to on the Quest 3. Should be some really crazy stuff happening with mixed reality.
 
I do remember John Carmack saying that foveated rendering gains aren't that great. I don't remember if he a gave a percent or anything but it's something to consider
Found two quotes, one from twitter some years old saying it will matter, for higher res displays, and a more recent discussion where the listeners seemingly heard him talk about fixed foveated rendering (sounds like blurring just everything around the center), so without eye tracking, and that that was no easy revolution for performance.

Foveated rendering with eye tracking should do pretty much the same as DLSS does.
At least from my point of view and limited understanding, this tech seems even more important than the resolution pump of the VR2 display itself. If he talks about that specifically, I would be interested in his reasoning if he meant it for that too.
 

nemiroff

Gold Member
Guys.., you don't need eye tracking for foveated rendering per se. Fixed foveated rendering has been used in VR headsets without eye tracking for YEARS, some close to a decade (and via OpenXR you can use FFR on pretty much any PC connected headset) . Much because of how lenses in VR headsets will soften the peripheral vision by default. AFAIK I can't see how the MQ3 isn't using fixed foveated rendering since it's been a part of their (Oculus) devkits since 2019. Eye tracking does further speed things up, but it's not like it's turning everything upside down.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
This is the VR headset im getting this year.

I wish it wasnt but I'm going for it. I hope its as powerful as possible and has a custom chip.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
I'm curious to see how much powerful it will be compared to quest 2. Let's see if pushes the games a little further.

But sounds like their priorities are beyond games

I think VR’s potential other then games is pretty big. Simulation, education, travel are all gonna use VR when the tech is up there
 

A.Romero

Member
Found two quotes, one from twitter some years old saying it will matter, for higher res displays, and a more recent discussion where the listeners seemingly heard him talk about fixed foveated rendering (sounds like blurring just everything around the center), so without eye tracking, and that that was no easy revolution for performance.

Foveated rendering with eye tracking should do pretty much the same as DLSS does.
At least from my point of view and limited understanding, this tech seems even more important than the resolution pump of the VR2 display itself. If he talks about that specifically, I would be interested in his reasoning if he meant it for that too.

You are right, foveated rendering with eye tracking is a game changer. I'd surprise me to see Carmack saying otherwise, it's just common sense.

I think PSVR2 will be a perfect demonstration about how impactful it is.
 

nemiroff

Gold Member
You are right, foveated rendering with eye tracking is a game changer. I'd surprise me to see Carmack saying otherwise, it's just common sense.

I think PSVR2 will be a perfect demonstration about1 how impactful it is.
FR with eyetracking is not really a game changer per se, at least if you put it into context. First of all, Sony didn't invent this, nor are they first on the market with this tech. Anyway, FFR has been used in VR headsets for many years. This was in context to VR lens on display flaws (especially in the past) that makes for a blurry peripheral FOV (hence the term "sweet spot") , so rendering 1:1 all the way out to the edges is a waste of resources (and the blurriness also reduces the effectiveness of foveated rendering via eyetracking because you only have a finite area to make it work better than FFR). Foveated rendering with eye tracking is indeed better because you can more accurately mimic how the fovea/macula works thus make the 100% rendering spot smaller (and the peripheral vision even blurrier). You'll save some resources compared to FFR still, but not in a "game changing" way.

Also, AFAIK PSVR2 doesn't have pancake lenses (which is now coming in the newest VR headsets), which would make foveated rendering a lot more useful.
 
Last edited:

SLB1904

Banned
FR with eyetracking is not really a game changer per se, at least if you put it into context. First of all, Sony didn't invent this, nor are they first on the market with this tech. Anyway, FFR has been used in VR headsets for many years. This was in context to VR lens on display flaws (especially in the past) that makes for a blurry peripheral FOV (hence the term "sweet spot") , so rendering 1:1 all the way out to the edges is a waste of resources (and the blurriness also reduces the effectiveness of foveated rendering via eyetracking because you only have a finite area to make it work better than FFR). Foveated rendering with eye tracking is indeed better because you can more accurately mimic how the fovea/macula works thus make the 100% rendering spot smaller (and the peripheral vision even blurrier). You'll save some resources compared to FFR still, but not in a "game changing" way.

Also, AFAIK PSVR2 doesn't have pancake lenses (which is now coming in the newest VR headsets), which would make foveated rendering a lot more useful.
Holly shit what a meltdown.

In what part of his comment mentioned Sony invented?
 

A.Romero

Member
FR with eyetracking is not really a game changer per se, at least if you put it into context. First of all, Sony didn't invent this, nor are they first on the market with this tech. Anyway, FFR has been used in VR headsets for many years. This was in context to VR lens on display flaws (especially in the past) that makes for a blurry peripheral FOV (hence the term "sweet spot") , so rendering 1:1 all the way out to the edges is a waste of resources (and the blurriness also reduces the effectiveness of foveated rendering via eyetracking because you only have a finite area to make it work better than FFR). Foveated rendering with eye tracking is indeed better because you can more accurately mimic how the fovea/macula works thus make the 100% rendering spot smaller (and the peripheral vision even blurrier). You'll save some resources compared to FFR still, but not in a "game changing" way.

Also, AFAIK PSVR2 doesn't have pancake lenses (which is now coming in the newest VR headsets), which would make foveated rendering a lot more useful.

I know this tech is not Sony's invention but as far as I know (and according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_rendering) it has had limited time in the market and not exploited a lot by developers so far.

Sony's claims are much more enticing that what we have seen so far: https://uploadvr.com/psvr-2-eye-tracking-foveated-rendering-gdc/

Assuming what Sony is claiming is true I don't see how it is not a game changer. I mean, nothing will ever beat PCVR for sure but it's pretty good for a console considering the headset is supposed to cost half of what a Vive Pro Eye would cost and also considering the console is much cheaper than a PC with the required hardware to make those headsets work.

Truth is that I have limited experience with VR (Only an Oculus Rift) and personally would never buy another piece of hardware from Meta. They pulled support from the platform far too early and getting replacements for a proprietary cable at a reasonable price is impossible now.
 

SLB1904

Banned
Can anyone give me an example of a good gaming use case for mixed reality?
Because I don't get it.
So far we having see anything yet. But the tech is relatively new. So is wait and see. I'm pretty some developers would play around AR
 

Reallink

Member
For good or bad -probably bad- Meta is two steps ahead of the rest on the VR space. Kinda logical considering the R&D investments they made.

They're not though, their fractionally funded competitors are actually putting out better hardware in many cases. Like HTC is literally boarderline bankrupt and by impressions have quite possibly built a better Pro at a $400 discount. They have no internal silicon, no internal OS (its Android), no internal display technologies. They're waiting on the same Failcom XR2 Gen2 everyone else is, and buying the same commodity lenses and displays everyone else is. The less said about their sofware the better, not that there's anything to say anything about in the first place. Being the first to market and eating the losses on Quest have been their only tangible successes. That bought them brand awareness and made them the default storefront for VR.
 
Last edited:
What a wasted endeavor by facebook. It will do better than all the other new headsets that will release soon including psvr 2. That's not saying much. VR is not in the minds of the mainstream any more.
 

Ar¢tos

Member
Oh yeah for sure. But gamers only care about what advancements it can bring to games
I care for gaming and for education, but sadly, without government funding, the potential for education will never be reached.
I would love virtual museums or virtual tours of historical places.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
FR with eyetracking is not really a game changer per se, at least if you put it into context. First of all, Sony didn't invent this, nor are they first on the market with this tech. Anyway, FFR has been used in VR headsets for many years. This was in context to VR lens on display flaws (especially in the past) that makes for a blurry peripheral FOV (hence the term "sweet spot") , so rendering 1:1 all the way out to the edges is a waste of resources (and the blurriness also reduces the effectiveness of foveated rendering via eyetracking because you only have a finite area to make it work better than FFR). Foveated rendering with eye tracking is indeed better because you can more accurately mimic how the fovea/macula works thus make the 100% rendering spot smaller (and the peripheral vision even blurrier). You'll save some resources compared to FFR still, but not in a "game changing" way.

Also, AFAIK PSVR2 doesn't have pancake lenses (which is now coming in the newest VR headsets), which would make foveated rendering a lot more useful.

Well, fixed foveated rendering sucks. You're right that the edges of the display are already blurrier than the center with fresnel lenses, but the lower res rendering around the edges is still EXTREMELY noticeable in many Quest 2 games, because it remains low res when you look there. The lens edge blur doesn't really hide that at all.
 

Deerock71

Member
It has no eye or face tracking because Zuckerberg tested them himself and the trackers reported no face or eye movements after several tests, so he blamed the faulty hardware.
Sipping Mark Zuckerberg GIF
 

Techies

Member
Red matter 2 on the Quest pro uses the eye tracking and foveated rendering to great success. Add a bit faster chip ya and hopefully there will be less sacrifices and just a good looking game.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Can anyone give me an example of a good gaming use case for mixed reality?
Because I don't get it.
Most of the gaming applications are gimmicks. Mixed Reality has a lot of potential in terms of work or social applications, but for gaming it's a bit silly.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
Weird obsession with foveated rendering ITT.

I mean, it's nice for saving a little bit of resources, so I sometimes use the hack on PC that lets you force it into any game, if I'm worried about a game rendering full resolution. But it's not a user feature so much as an optimization.

There are plenty of compromises they have to weigh when putting out an actual all-in-one headset that is affordable. There's no inherent reason that foveated rendering is more important than actually being wireless so that you can enjoy free VR spatial movement. It's like anything Sony added to their headset is suddenly considered necessary even though Sony has massive compromises of their own that directly affect the user. Waaaay more actual users will be bothered by a physical cord than by having one less option for improving game optimization.
 

mckmas8808

Banned
I'm curious to see how much powerful it will be compared to quest 2. Let's see if pushes the games a little further.

But sounds like their priorities are beyond games

From what people are saying, it's a small increase. Like only a 20% jump in power.
 

mckmas8808

Banned
Weird obsession with foveated rendering ITT.


There are plenty of compromises they have to weigh when putting out an actual all-in-one headset that is affordable. There's no inherent reason that foveated rendering is more important than actually being wireless so that you can enjoy free VR spatial movement. It's like anything Sony added to their headset is suddenly considered necessary even though Sony has massive compromises of their own that directly affect the user. Waaaay more actual users will be bothered by a physical cord than by having one less option for improving game optimization.

Depends on the user. For gamers the functionality of these headsets is this....

MetaQuest 2 and 3 = Nintendo Switch

PSVR2 = PS5

PCVR = PC Gaming


Nobody expects to use their PS5 on the go like a Switch.
 
Top Bottom