The Quest 3 may be better but literally everything they asked for requires good passthrough.
That 1/7th the price would be sunk money if they’re trying to evaluate real world interaction.
https://youtu.be/7KCez6Ocxxg?t=40
So did Marc Gurman:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-28/meta-q...
> video pass-through on the Quest 3 presented colors more accurately and offered an almost lifelike rendering of the real world. I was even able to use my phone while wearing the headset, something that often feels impossible on a Quest 2
It will certainly be fascinating to see how good it really is.
honestly, for it's primary purpose it's great. That is, you get complete situational awareness, you can see people and talk to them, pick up your coffee and drink from it all just fine.
But the actual quality is super dependent on the environment. In poor lighting it completely goes to hell, turning into pixelated goo, and the frame rate drops to the point you can physically see it. It also experiences distortions, so around the edges of objects you get major waviness that changes as you move which can be very distracting.
This is why you'll hear completely contradictory reports of it from different people. If you happened to use it in a really well lit environment with nice uniform lighting you probably would have thought it was really good.
(I probably would recommend waiting for Quest 3 in a couple of months though ... it'll be so much more like the Vision Pro ...)