Meta Quest 3/AR/VR Thoughts

Another "not exactly a development themed" post but, I picked up a Quest 3 over the weekend after having tried my brother's Quest 2. Here are my thoughts on it. Will probably be a long post as I have a lot of thoughts.

AR/VR Thoughts on Quest 3

Head tracking is great. I put something in place in AR or look around at anything in full VR and it stays where it should and it keeps up with me when I move. This feels magical. And it is consistent in both 1st and 3rd party experiences. This is also, I would say, the first pillar required for mass adoption of either type of experience. I'm not sure how long Meta has had this nailed down, but this is impressive.

Hand tracking is not as perfect. Though, I think it is software addressable. Both with and without controllers the software can track the location of my hands with a high degree of accuracy. Where it fails some times is with intent and occlusion/distance. 

With regards to intent a good example is the hand tracking. Because of the issues with distance and occlusion, I'll often opt to use my index to direct the system to the button or component I want to interact with. Then, touch my thumb to my index finger is supposed to trigger that action. However, touching my thumb to my index finger means necessarily moving the very same index finger which was indicating my selection. Even without this, the act of contracting my finger muscles to close that connection tends to cause my hands to move. As a result of this, I often need several attempts to actually click on something despite the actual tracking of my hands being quite accurate.

Now, I could just "poke" with my index finger were it not for the occlusion/distance issues. There are frequent issues, both in the OS and in games, where the UI elements are being treated as being at different distances away. If there were some way with these 2D panels to indicate distance that might help, but alternatively, they need a distance which is learnable/trainable. This would mean that elements like the task bar and windows would need to appear to shrink or grow as you get further or closer to them. Then, even without more visual cues you could learn how far away these elements are to interact with this properly. Alternatively, the head set needs to be able to set a distance at which a point becomes a poke. As I said though, the tracking is good and the rest is just software. This is the second pillar. Getting to a point where most apps and games can be run without controllers because the hand tracking is just that good. We're not there.

The third pillar would be full body tracking. I know they are working on some approximation with the limited data the sensors can get. At the moment, one of the worst things to break the immersion is not the virtual overlay of crappy hands or anything like that, but all of the other body parts which are missing. 

To explain, today I was playing golf. The game requires just one controller, so all it shows is a club. For the most part this is absolutely fine. Then I was trying to line up a shot and wanted to use my other hand/arm to help me visualize the path of the ball. However, my other hand/arm was nowhere to be seen. In an instant, the illusion was shattered. The same obviously happens in games where the location of your "feet" may be important and they don't show or they show up but don't respond properly or at all to your real feet. This is the 3rd pillar.

Software Thoughts

In this area, the industry needs Nintendo Switch level buy in on game optimization. I'm 100% certain that even after the all of the tracking computation is done that there is more than enough processing power level over to do something like Tears of the Kingdom. I know the Switch is massively more widely adopted and Nintendo has more clout with developers than Meta so I'm not upset or shocked. Just saying that with the state of the hardware, the software needs more investment in optimization.

Basically, I would say that in general, graphics in games range from Game Cube up to Wii levels where it really needs to get to Switch levels at least. Most games feel like decades old games on magical new technology. Even the much vaunted Asgard's Wrath 2 feels like an experience which could have been delivered on the Wii in terms of graphical fidelity. Now, I suspect that a lot of this is because the ecosystem was primarily built for the Quest 2 and older. 

I'm hopeful though here. It sounds like both the Quest 2 and 3 sold well over the holidays and this will hopefully drive greater investment from the likes of companies like Unreal and Unity. Getting optimizations from a major engine developer should help propel the whole industry. And the more adoption the industry gets the more likely this will happen.

Hardware

I'm super torn on the hardware side of things. In my mind what Meta has delivered is both spectacular and also drops the ball in rather dumb ways.

I had written thoughts which was twice as long as the rest of the post on this. So, I think I'll just condense it.

The Quest 3 is a great device, but it is marred by a failure to properly position it into the market it is launching into. Especially because the Quest 2 both exists and is still being sold. The Quest 3, at launch, is coming into an environment where most games and experiences were built around the Quest 2. And the Quest 2 will out numbered Quest 3 owners for some time still and continue to make up a sizeable market share for a while. As such, I expect most experiences to continue to be developed with both in mind for at least a year or more.

This fundamentally renders the Quest 3 as a more expensive Quest 2 with color passthrough. The AR experiences are not the sort of things you would do daily at the moment. It is also a bit more futureproof, so I'm not trying to call it a complete waste. Rather, I think Meta should have been a bit more strategic about pricing and peripherals.

Literally every review of the Quest 2 and 3 say the same things. The default strap and the battery life suck. Personally, I'm OK with the battery life for the price point. I'm not OK with the cost of the 1st party upgrades however.

My opinion is this, the Quest 3 should have charged more to incorporated a new strap as the default. This strap should have the ability to add a swappable battery after the fact. The cost increase should have been more than the actual cost of the strap to offset the lack of sales of an "Elite" strap for this unit.

Why? The only reason I bought the Quest 3 was because I experienced the Quest 2 from my brother with the Elite strap. If I was a little more strapped for cash or had never tried a unit with a better strap I would have returned the Quest 3. Being comfortable completely alters the experience. I couldn't go more than 15 minutes in the default strap. I've worn it with my aftermarket one for hour+ sessions and only taken it off because I was done. Little to no discomfort.

Let that sink in. There will be people receiving this or buying it for themselves and experiencing it for the first time with JUST the default strap. They will put it on, hate the experience and return it. Some others won't return it but will lend it to friend or family member who simply can't see themselves enjoying it due to the strap. 

This decision is KILLING the product. It is fine on the Quest 2 which is substantially cheaper. But the Quest 3 is treading on XBox Series X and PS5 prices which are PREMIUM gaming experiences. Even if you don't look at this as a gaming device, it is in that cost category.