I don't think they need to go for 4K per eye - Vision Pro is not 4k by the way, it's 3660x3200 per eye, 34PPD. With resolving power that is actually worse than Quest 3.

I think something like Pimax Crystal Lite should be their "sensible" solution for Quest 4, 2880x2880, with 35PPD.

They should go as high as they can IMO, the pixels do matter, I notice when watch big screen movies on the Quest 3 there's still a pixelated effect that leaves a bit to be desired, I've heard on the Vision Pro watching movies in 4K is mind blowing, if Quest can get there but offer something like that for a much lower price I think that would be a really nice killer feature they could tout. 

They need to improve the software too, the Netflix and Youtube apps are outdated and there should be a native Disney Plus app. 

VR has been touted as the future for 40 years. VR has too many hangups to be anymore more than its own niche.

Yeah, Quest 3 is bit of a let down on many fronts, resolution being one as well, though it does have better resolving power than even 7x pricier Vision Pro (which isn't really even that good compared to some other high end VR headsets) - not that it matter much with resolution it packs.

Price is the point - Quest 2 succeeded because it was best bang for the money, while still being technically quite solid - they cannot go all out with tech, cause that would make next Quest way too expensive. There is reason why I mentioned Pimax Crystal Lite, since it's $699, so it's reasonable to assume that Meta can use similar screen for less cost - you want something much better, with 50+ PPD and 3840x3840 per eye, sure there's that too - but for $1800-$2000.

Yes, pixels do matter and you can up sampling techniques are getting better and better to 'fill in the gaps'.

For 20/20 vision 30 degree fov was deemed the optimum viewing angle for 1080p tv. That's 64 pixels per degree, which correlates to 30 cycles per degree (60 pixels per degree) for 20/20 vision.

VR currently covers 110 degrees fov.  3.67 times more than the optimal viewing angle for 1920 pixels wide. Therefore VR should aim for 7,040 x 7,000 per eye to match HDTV quality at 110 degrees fov. 4K per eye is essentially still lower than the HDTV standard.



To get the sharpness of 4K TV in VR you need to go even higher, although 4K TV is more for sitting closer / bigger screens, increasing the FOV. Human vision can still sort of see an improvement up to 100 degrees per degree, yet 60 is enough, 80 is ideal. (Above is kind of a waste, hence 1440p upscaled to 4K looks good enough on 4K TV and often indistinguishable from native 4k)

For the perfect headset, offering up to 220 degree fov combined

Each individual eye has a horizontal FOV of about 135 degrees and a vertical FOV of just over 180 degrees.

At 60 pixels per degree you're looking at 8,100 x 10,800 per eye
At 80 pixels per degree you're looking at 10,800 x 14,400 per eye

Eye-tracked dynamic foveated rendering can make rendering these kind of resolution possible, as only a few degrees ever need to be at full detail / resolution. Yet the display tech has to get there first.

It's entirely achievable in the future, Pimax already has 6K dual qled screens, coming Q1 2025
https://pimax.com/pages/pimax-12k

Yet Quest 4, next budget headset, needs to focus on eye tracking and dynamic foveated rendering. There's more to gain there now than higher raw resolution for a standalone headset.

At least, the pancake lenses affording a better range to see in the headset is already something miles ahead of what we had with the Quest 2. I played my brother's Quest 2 and going back to the Quest 3 felt like a totally different experience visually because of that.
Helps immensely that internal resolutions have been upgraded on most apps supporting the Q3 natively now.

Of course, the failure of the mixed reality features proves that they shouldn't have really banked on that feature to advertise an headset mostly used for VR experiences. The next iteration of the Q3 with the lack of said MR features and what else will bring down the cost to access and will hopefully bring the more casual side of the market.

In the meantime, their next headset the Quest 4 needs the eye tracking feature. I'm surprised about how that tech has matured and yet hasn't been employed other than any professional premium headsets mostly.

Huh? They topped Wii Sports with Wii Sports Resort and better motion controls. Motion controls clearly weren't a fad (Nintendo ignored it on WiiU with predictable results) and Nintendo more than anybody else sailed through the 'smartphone era' despite everybody and their dog predicting their handhelds wouldn't survive. Where's PSP these days? Oh yeh, Sony abandoned HHs for VR. Genius idea meanwhile Super Mario Run and Pokemon Go dominated the smartphone charts in the same way Nintendo's IPs would comfortably dominate VR - the most replayable games on VR could easily be described as Wii clones.

Not being able to see your phone and low pixel density aren't the barriers to mainstream adoption of VR. The phone thing is already solved. MQ 2 should have had Avatar 3D built in (is there a better 3D film?), allow HDMI inputs and promote that it's a 300" personal projector, get the 3DS version of Nintendo virtual console on there with it's 3D gimmick for classic games, lowkey promote the 3DS emulator. MQ2 does 95% of what MQ3 does so MQ4 isn't going to change anything.

My advice is to pick up a 2nd hand MQ2 on Ebay for ~£100, pirate one of the "AAA" games so you can see how overrated they are and use your limited HD space more efficiently. Once you get bored of Walkabout minigolf, sell the controllers for ~£100 so you get a free headset. Try some 3D movies. Buy a £8 usb HDMI capture card so you have a free 300" TV (latency is tiny). Connect any bluetooth controllers and DL the 3DS emulator to play your backups. I've struggled to connect it to PC for games with better performance/graphics but I doubt it'll change my opinion.

Wii sold 101 million, 3DS sold 76 million, Switch sold 141 million. Nintendo consolidated their business into one device, that's not growth.
Motion controls are also rarely used anymore on Switch. (and a pita ass when you do need to use them)

Wii Sports Resort was more like DLC, but it did sell 33 million copies, same as the Wii Balance board.
That's all Wii though. WiiU was fully BC, but crashed. Switch motion controls were disappointing. The controllers are too small for my liking. I'm glad I got the special edition TotK controller with the game, best upgrade for my Switch. I should have done that a lot sooner, BotW was not great with the joy cons.


Your last paragraph explains why VR is 'failing'. PCVR isn't getting new big budget releases since people don't want to pay for them. Quest is losing Billions every quarter.

I've watched 3D movies on PSVR, it's just as bad as in the cinema. The fixed stereoscopic view doesn't work long for me, good for a headache though. (Last 3D movie I watched in the cinema I had to take the glasses off repeatedly to rest my eyes. I rather watch double images on the screen than a stuck stereoscopic effect that doesn't react to head movement)

I wouldn't use a headset for big screen viewing either, but I've been used to having a projector for decades. Much nicer for movie watching and flat games. BotW was amazing on the big screen (bar from the joy con troubles, left one kept disconnecting, too far from the Switch doh)

Nah VR headsets are for VR, use em for what they are made for. GT7 still wows me in VR, Puzzling places recently had a resolution upgrade for PSVR2, looking very nice and sharp now while the puzzle packs keep getting better. Synthrider experience levels still blow my mind with the OLED screens. (And finally "Take on me" added!)

Quest is great for standalone use, yet I rather have the OLED screens. Once you go OLED it's hard to go back :/


Btw what do you mean with the phone thing has already been solved? I still see many complaints about no phone integration on Reddit. Requests for pip etc. I don't have a phone myself so no barrier for me haha.

3D movie viewing on PSVR isn't great, it's quite impressive on the Apple Vision Pro and even Meta Quest 3. It's a big difference.

No doubt it's better with higher resolution headsets, but it's still a fixed stereoscopic viewpoint. It's not like the Joshua Bell Experience or volumetric video in The 7th Guest. If it's not impressive in the cinema (still just feels gimmicky to me) a headset won't do any better.

But sure, between PSVR1 960x1080 per eye and Apple's 3660 x 3200, there is a big difference!