The Meta Quest Pro was almost certainly a flop. I say nearly because we don’t have official sales data to know for sure, but it’s never a good indication when a device gets a permanent price cut by a third barely five months after introduction, slashing $500 / ₹52291.05 / AU$720 off its original $1,499.99 / ₹156872.12 / AU$2,449.99 price.
You might expect Meta to consider benching its high-end Quest line as a result of this failure, and there were rumors that one of its Quest Pro 2 projects was canceled, but given the big and unstoppable Apple Vision Pro launch, there may be a greater hunger for high-end VR hardware.
So, after considering all of the differences between the Apple Vision Pro and Quest Pro 2, and combining them with my professional experience testing VR headsets, I’ve identified four Apple Vision Pro characteristics that I believe the Meta Quest Pro 2 should grab for itself.
Bye-bye, eye-tracking. We barely knew you
In his pseudo-Meta Quest 3 ad comparing his company’s headset to the Apple Vision Pro – which, admittedly, makes some valid arguments about why Quest is superior – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that eye-tracking will return in future Meta headsets.
We kind of knew this beforehand. Meta has previously stated that Quest Pro capabilities will be available in future Pro and non-Pro devices, but here is official confirmation. However, I am here to tell that we do not need to see it anytime soon.
Eye tracking on the Quest Pro is worthless. It only applies to a few apps, such as Horizon Worlds and Workrooms, where it helps your avatar appear more expressive. Sure, it’s cool, but I can only count the number of times I’ve used it on half a hand, and I use VR frequently.
The Vision Pro’s hand-tracking technology now includes eye-tracking, making it more relevant. However, given that every entry in our Apple Vision Pro review roundup acknowledged that it wasn’t always dependable (though our review did appreciate its precision), it doesn’t appear that Apple’s hand-tracking system is functionally superior to Meta’s eye-tracking-less hand-tracking system. So that’s another argument against eye tracking.
Instead, I’d rather remove this component to save money and weight on other vital and beneficial features, such as those listed below.
If it’s here to stay, all I ask is that we see more applications for it, such as foveated rendering, which allows the headset to only fully render the region you’re actively looking at in order to make better use of a headset’s processing capacity. The one or two independent VR apps that employ it have been likened to PCVR in terms of visual quality, so perhaps new software will show my anti-eye-tracking stance incorrect.
Much improved passthrough
The major disappointment with the initial Meta Quest Pro was its passthrough. I had great hopes for Meta’s first standalone mixed reality headgear, but it tripped and face-planted.
Virtual mixed reality looked OK, however unless you were in a really bright environment, the actual world was blurry. It was as if the world had been captured on a slightly worn VHS cassette.
Meta significantly improved the passthrough quality of its headsets with the Meta Quest 3. While it’s still not lifelike, it’s a tremendous improvement, and I’ve gone from never using mixed reality to almost every VR session.
The Meta Quest Pro 2 should take things to the next level with improved visual fidelity and latency. Quest headsets now have a 40ms delay between things happening and it displaying on screen, whilst the Vision Pro is closer to 12ms, indicating that there is still more space for improvement – lower latency should lead to mixed reality being less motion sickness-inducing.
4K OLED displays for each eye
If I could put any Vision Pro feature into my Meta Quest 3, it would be the 4K OLED displays, which have one for each eye and provide sharp graphics with good black contrast.
I believe the Quest 3’s two 2,064 by 2,208 pixel LCDs are adequate for its price range, but if and when the more premium Meta Quest Pro 2 is released, it will require considerably better displays – preferably something closer to the Vision Pro’s.
There are reports that it will also support micro-OLED panels, which I hope happens. If it doesn’t, I can see this being the primary reason why Apple’s headset remains a popular choice among high-end XR gadget owners.
More entertainment video apps
Almost everything I’ve seen on the Apple Vision Pro can be done on a Meta Quest 3 – and, by extension, the Quest Pro and a likely backwards-compatible Quest Pro 2. The glaring exception is that the Vision Pro features a lot of TV streaming apps that are not available on Quest.
You may argue that Meta counters with fitness apps that are not available on Vision Pro, but why can’t we have it all?
Quest currently has a small selection of streaming services, with only YouTube seeming worthwhile; Netflix and Prime Video aren’t worth your time, even if you already subscribe to them. In comparison, the Vision Pro includes an extensive streaming library as well as quick access to 3D entertainment via Disney Plus. Adding 3D films to your Quest is much more time-consuming.
When I asked Meta if it planned to introduce more of the finest streaming services to Quest, a spokeswoman said there was “no additional information to share at this time.”
I’m hoping this indicates that something is in the works, but we’ll have to wait and see.
A detachable battery, but not in the way you expect
One of the Vision Pro’s most despised features is its external battery, which hangs from a cord and fits into your pocket. I’ve previously defended it since I believe that removing the battery is a brilliant concept for productivity-focused headsets, but I’d prefer that the Quest Pro 2 follow in the footsteps of the HTC Vive XR Elite.
When I tested the headset for our HTC Vive XR Elite review, I was overall unimpressed. But even now, I can’t stop thinking about the removable power pack, which transformed the headset into much lighter glasses.
To use them like this, you had to plug them directly into a power source or PC – and the glasses felt like they were about to fall off my face – but it was much easier to wear the 273g specs for long periods of time than the 722g Quest Pro, and I imagine it’s also easier than wearing the 600g Vision Pro.
Given that you’ll require more than the two hours provided by most headsets’ internal batteries for work or viewing a movie, you’ll need to plug into an outlet anyway, so why not have the option to remove it? If you don’t move very often, being connected isn’t much of an issue.
When you want to get up and exercise or play a game, simply plug the battery back in. This design feature is truly fantastic, and I would love to see it implemented in an equally fantastic headset.
