Yeah, Quest 3 has much better display and lenses than 3S, while both have same CPU/GPU combo.

Technically, if you want only to play PC VR games, Quest 2 might be your best bet due to how cheap it is (if you can still find it somewhere), but then you are limited to Quest 2 library when you want to use it standalone, which is not small and has lot of really good games, but new games haven't been supporting it for a while now.

Personally, I'm waiting for Quest 4, I liked Quest 3 display/lenses/FOV improvements, but felt that jump in processing power from Quest 2 was not nearly enough (only 2-2.5x), and lack of eye tracking was major disappointment (it would've alleviated some of that very modest jump in processing via foveated rendering), so these days my Quest 2 is often connected to PC.

Is it confirmed that Quest 4 gets eye tracking? It would really help speed up the process to get more DFR games (dynamic foveated rendering)

Atm PSVR2 gets a lot of Quest / PCVR ports, but it's rare for DFR to be added. For example The midnight walk just came out (Steam, PSVR2) and the resolution on PSVR2 resembles PSVR1 more than PSVR2. No DFR.

The difference between DFR and no DFR is massive, well implemented it can double perceived resolution and run better. If Quest 4 gets eye tracking a lot more titles should become DFR enabled.

Used well it looks like this on the social screen (Hitman)


I'm looking at the center here, yet when moving my eyes around everything looks as sharp to me as in the center of the image, while the aggressive DFR has the resolution away from the center drop dramatically.

This is how Hitman manages to run smoothly with huge crowds and long distance views. Same how GT7 doesn't have to compromise anything to run on PSVR2 as well as on TV. (Of course it doesn't look as sharp in the headset since it's 2000x2040 per eye over 110 degrees, vs 4K over 40 degrees on TV)

The problem is atm it takes months to add DFR. Hopefully Quest 4 can speed up the process simply by more platforms supporting DFR, so more games will be made with DFR in mind rather than having to recode the render pipeline afterwards.

And the benefits of DFR only increase with higher resolution headsets

Here I plot visual acuity vs degrees from the fovea. You need 8K per eye to come close to 20/20 vision (1.0, 60 pixels per degree), PSVR2 is about 20/60 vision. The higher the resolution of the headset, the smaller the area you actually need to render in that higher resolution. PSVR2 and Quest 3 already max out human vision outside a 20 degree cone around where you are looking. Thus less than 20% of the screen needs to be rendered 'better' for the next generation of headsets.

PSVR2 about matches Quest 3 in the center due to the fresnel lenses with pincushion effect. Quest 3 (2064x2208 per eye) has the same resolution across the board thanks to pancake lenses, PSVR2 (2000x2040 per eye) has higher pixel density in the center. Thus while the avg of both is about 19 pixels per degree, Quest 3's lower stereo overlap pushes the perceived ppd to 22, while PSVR2 enjoys that only in the center, at the edges it would be down to 15 ppd.

(I'm calculating horizontal fov here, so not getting to the same number of 25ppd as the earlier video for Quest 3, 2064/93 = 22)

Quest 4 is rumored to get 2500 x 2600 per eye. Over 110 degrees that puts it at 23 ppd. However if the lenses / setup are similar to quest 3 (meaning 69% stereo overlap, 76 degrees stereo fov, each lens should have about 93 degrees fov for 110 fov total) it's 27 ppd.

Quest 3s is 1832x1920 with reportedly improved stereo overlap vs Quest 3 but lower overall fov, 97 degrees. So about 20 ppd.



Anyway they're all pretty close and still far off the 90 ppd people watch 4K tvs at. (which would be 20/15 acuity, needing 12K per eye for VR) Better processing power trumps resolution of the headset for now. The sharpest looking title on PSVR2 is Red Matter 2 thanks to DFR with super sampling (equivalent to 7840x3818 without DFR) Down sampling still looks significantly better on low resolution displays than having to upscale to meet a headsets native resolution.

And eye tracking will jump Quest 4 ahead for sure, that is, if it gets it and gets used for DFR. DFR makes the biggest difference and would do wonders for a standalone headset.

I managed to grab the Quest 2 for $100 AUD, the original owner only used it once and that was it, still had all the clear plastic on the device and was boxed. Win.

That is probably the best bang-for-performance in my opinion... And that way you can make an assessment if it's going to get some use or be a paperweight.

...And for me, I rarely use the thing, might change if I buy some decent games for it that I enjoy though.

If you are going to go big on a Quest 3, I would wait for the Quest 4.

I don't think eye tracking is confirmed for Quest 4, but pretty much everyone is expecting it - honestly, it would be insane not to put it in at this point. And yeah, it will majorly improve visuals, and since Quest is most selling VR headset, eye tracking might finally become de facto standard.

Ok, I think I made my mind. I'm waiting a bit longer.

In September, Meta will hold the Meta Connect 2025, where they share their plans for the future. There's a possibility that they will announce the Meta Quest 4 for next year at this event, and if they do, then I'll definitely wait for it.

There's a rumor that it will have eye tracking and face tracking, and that would be really Pog. And by then I would have enough money to purchase one.

Thank you so much for the help, guys!

I'm still happy with my with my HP Reverb G2, but its days are numbered due to Microsoft ending the WMR support.

If I had to buy a VR headset today, it would be the Meta Quest 3, not the Meta Quest 3S.

But I'll wait for the Meta Quest 4 or the rumored Valve Deckard.

Well, there's a lot of VR games I plan to buy.

Batman Arkham Shadow, Slender: The Arrival and Beat Saber for example. I know I can die playing Slender in Virtual Reality, but whatever, I want to try it anyway lol.