.webp)
The $300 Meta Quest 3S is comparable to a basic Honda Accord in terms of virtual reality headsets. Although the $500 Quest 3, which is more akin to a Touring-grade Honda for enthusiasts, has better optics, it nevertheless delivers the same experience: a fully realistic virtual reality environment. After a week of testing, I consider the Quest 3S to be more of an improvement over the Quest 2 than a regression. Four years ago, the same headset was released for $300. However, due to supply chain problems, its price varied, and eventually, it was hindered by outdated hardware.
However, Meta now has a $300 VR entry that allows you to experiment with mixed reality (superimposing digital items on top of a real-world camera feed), has a far more powerful CPU, and has improved hand and controller tracking. The Quest 3S might be one of the most important VR items that Meta has produced to yet, even if it could just seem like a less competent Quest 3.
Hardware
Other than its triangle sensor array, the Quest 3S doesn't appear all that different from the Quest 3, as I indicated in my first hands-on. It still features an adjustable Y-shaped strap, a strong plastic casing, and enough of padding around your eyes. When the headsets are facing each other, it's rather difficult to tell them apart. I often looked at their front sensors when testing them on the same workstation.
But if you look more closely, you'll see some significant distinctions. For starters, the Quest 3S's distinctive concentric rings of Fresnel lenses are clearly visible. They have previously been used in less expensive VR headsets, and Meta also utilized them on the Quest 2. Pancake lenses, in contrast, have a smooth surface and are used in the Quest 3. (See below for further information on the technical distinctions between those two lens types.)
By reusing the Quest 2's 1,830 by 1,920 pixel per eye screen, Meta was able to reduce the price of the Quest 3S. For a crisper and more realistic image, the Quest 3's screen has 30% more pixels (2,264 by 2,208 pixels each eye).
Because the Quest 3S lacks a headphone connector, you will need to use wireless headphones or a USB-C converter to improve sound quality. I guess it makes sense to lose it here, even if I will always be a supporter of 3.5mm audio connectors. Anyone who requires the quality of a wired connection probably wouldn't mind paying extra for the Quest 3 (or spending $10 on a USB-C to 3.5mm adaptor), and the majority of Quest 3S customers will probably be quite content with its built-in speakers.
Meta Quest 3S
The tilted design of the Meta Quest 3S reveals the USB-C connection. In order to estimate the ideal pupillary distance, you must manually put the lenses into three locations instead of using the Quest 3's handy dial for changing lens spacing. At least you only have to deal with this once, even if it requires repeatedly putting the headset on and taking it off—exactly the kind of friction that might easily turn off VR novices. However, if you're sharing the headset with your family, it can be a more serious issue.
Meta included an action button that allows you to easily switch between a fully immersive VR view and mixed reality mode, which displays a video feed of your room. The Quest 3 lacks this feature entirely; instead, you must tap the right front corner to enter mixed reality. I don't mind that it somewhat deviates from the Quest 3S's design curves since having a separate button is just more convenient, especially for novice VR users.
The Touch Controllers used by the Quest 3S are identical to those of its more costly sister, and they are once again superb. They are now just light controllers that fit your hand like a glove, doing away with the cumbersome motion tracking ring of the previous generations. The buttons provide incredibly responsive feedback, and the joysticks feel precise and fluid. But that's nothing new: Ever since the initial Oculus Touch controllers were made available in 2016, I've been pleased by Facebook's gamepads.
The Quest 3S's hardware, which Meta carried over from its more costly headset, is its key component. The Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 CPU, which has 8GB of RAM and, according to the firm, doubles the graphics capability of the Quest 2. Although it's a little improvement over the Quest 2's 6GB of RAM, it's necessary to store more intricate graphics.
Developers may now just create for a single hardware specification rather than worrying about how a game will run on the slower Quest 2. More software in the Meta Quest store should ideally result from less problems for developers. Additionally, it is hoped that a plethora of new apps will encourage additional headset purchases. This results in the sale of additional apps. This positive cycle has the potential to pull Meta out of the years-long death spiral that the consumer VR market has been in.
Read Also: Apple Watch Series 10 Review
Utilized: Quick And Useful Virtual Reality
After putting on the Quest 3S, my initial thought was, "Wow, it feels really quick." It was really quick and fast to navigate the Meta home environment, download a few applications, and complete the headset onboarding procedure. I also recalled it from the Quest 3, but using a $300 headset makes it feel even more shocking. The latency and sporadic slowdowns I become accustomed to on the Quest 2 were absent.
Additionally, the real VR experience appeared realistic and detailed. The Quest 3's resolution reduction didn't really bother me, but it was clear that the less expensive Fresnel lenses produced more artifacts. In games like Pistol Whip, God rays from really bright things frequently appeared, edges appeared a little fuzzier, and I occasionally noticed haloing around objects. Without a doubt, the Quest 3's pancake lenses appear much sharper since they are less prone to the same optical problems.
The problem is that I don't believe the Fresnel lenses will have a significant impact on VR novices. For years, I lived with those same artifacts and enjoyed VR headsets. And it was worthwhile if Meta was able to reduce the price of the Quest 3S to $300 by using less expensive lenses. Cost is the largest obstacle to the VR world, not quality.
I also became less aware of the visual problems as I began to spend a lot of time inside the Quest 3S. Because of the headset's precise hand tracking and immersive audio, Maestro performed an amazing job at simulating the live symphonic experience, but I was far more engaged in trying to direct the ideal symphony. Taking a random pen from my desk and turning it into a virtual baton was also entertaining. Quest 3's game does appear a little clearer, but I'm willing to bet that most consumers won't be comparing the two headsets side by side.
I also played Mobile Suit Gundam: Silver Phantom for an hour. It's more of an interactive anime movie than a game, but it was so captivating that I began to overlook the Quest 3S's relics. They just aren't important if you're in the middle of an amazing virtual reality encounter. Of course, I also played some of the older games, like Pistol Whip and Superhot, which are still a lot of fun.
The Competition And Pricing
The Quest 3S has 128GB of storage and costs $300, while the $400 model doubles that to 256GB. Your only choice if you want 512GB of capacity is the $500 Quest 3. However, the $400 Quest 3S doesn't seem like a wise purchase considering the more costly headset's optical edge. You might be better off saving money till you can get a Quest 3 if you require more storage than 128GB.
When it comes to low-cost standalone VR headsets, Meta currently has little competition. With a starting price of $1,000, HTC's Vive Focus 3 lineup—which now includes the new Focus 3 Vision—is primarily targeted at businesses and enterprises. The platform doesn't make much sense for most customers because HTC Vive's marketplace contains significantly fewer games and applications than Meta's.
Conclusion
The greatest $300 stand-alone VR headset we've yet seen is the Meta Quest 3S. It provides a fast virtual reality experience and is pleasant to wear. Because it's so fantastic, you probably won't notice that it has more visual artifacts and isn't as crisp as the Quest 3. Those issues will disappear once you're fully engaged in virtual reality.
In addition to its Orion augmented reality glasses, Ray-Ban smart frames, and the billions it has already invested in virtual reality, Meta is adamant that the future of computing is in your face. However, many individuals avoid wearing glasses by forcing contact lenses onto their eyeballs, even if light smart glasses are still glasses. The public's actual reaction to real AR glasses is unknown. However, that is actually an issue for the future. For the time being, we can simply appreciate the Quest 3S for what it is: Excellent VR at a reasonable cost.