With Meta’s Quest 3, Mixed Reality Is Here. So Now What?

The New York Times columnist Brian X. Chen tests the Quest 3, which Meta is marketing as the first mainstream mixed-reality headset (Via Meta)
The New York Times columnist Brian X. Chen tests the Quest 3, which Meta is marketing as the first mainstream mixed-reality headset (Via Meta)
TT

With Meta’s Quest 3, Mixed Reality Is Here. So Now What?

The New York Times columnist Brian X. Chen tests the Quest 3, which Meta is marketing as the first mainstream mixed-reality headset (Via Meta)
The New York Times columnist Brian X. Chen tests the Quest 3, which Meta is marketing as the first mainstream mixed-reality headset (Via Meta)

By Brian X. Chen

Last week, I spent several hours trying Meta’s latest goggles, the Quest 3. They ship next month. The headset runs virtual reality games with a novel twist: While shooting a blaster gun, snatching bats from midair and controlling a robot, I could see the real world through built-in cameras.

This is what Meta and its new rival, Apple, which recently unveiled the $3,500 Vision Pro headset, call “mixed reality” or “spatial computing,” interchangeable terms to describe computers that blend digital data with the physical world.

These immersive computers, the companies say, could eventually become indispensable tools that change the way we live. Imagine reading a holographic recipe in the corner of your eye while cooking, for example, or staring at furniture parts with digital assembly instructions overlaid on them.

But for now, the devices are primarily used for playing games, and killer apps have yet to surface.

Meta’s $500 Quest 3 headset, arriving in stores on Oct. 10 (pre-orders start on Wednesday), has sharper graphics than its predecessor, the Quest 2, which costs $200 less. Its marquee new feature is a set of high-resolution, “pass-through” cameras for seeing the outside world in color. They are a big improvement from the Quest 2’s weaker camera system, which rendered a muddy monochrome picture.

After a two-hour session playing with the Quest 3, I removed the goggles and asked Meta employees the $10 billion question about mixed reality: What’s the point?

Meta’s answer to that is vague. The ability to simultaneously interact with virtual and physical space, the company said, would make it easier for people to feel connected to one another while wearing goggles. That could eventually be useful for collaborating on work tasks. What kind of work? Those apps are actively in development, a Meta spokesman told me.

To market the Quest 3, Meta highlighted mixed reality games. In First Encounters, a space game, I used a blaster gun to shoot a virtual wall, removing pieces of it brick by brick to see into the real world.

In Stranger Things VR, a game based on the popular Netflix series, I took on the role of the show’s antagonist with telepathic powers. I could see virtual cracks embedded into the physical room surrounding me; when I pointed at the cracks and spread my fingers outward to open them up, bats flew out of the chasms. I grabbed them to squish them dead.

In Bam!, I could see other Quest 3 wearers in the room while we controlled miniature robots that battled each other inside a virtual arena. Each player could see a virtual platform containing the arena and adjust it to be level with the physical tabletop in front of them. The game was fun, but seeing others flail around their motion controllers while donning the geeky goggles didn’t improve the game (though it certainly made me feel more self-conscious).

The experience of socializing with others while playing games reminded me of the LAN (local area network) parties of the 1990s, when gamers carried bulky computers to one another’s homes to play together. It was a type of social gathering that feels antiquated now that internet speeds are zippy enough for us to play games online from our own homes.

Some mixed-reality app developers I later interviewed offered more clarity than Meta about the benefits of the technology. Naer is a start-up working on a mixed-reality app for office workers to brainstorm ideas on virtual white boards and sticky notes.

Developers there said that being able to see into the real world while juggling virtual tasks would make the experience less jarring for professionals to wear headsets while working alongside colleagues in an office.

A founder of Naer, which is based in Norway, Sondre Kvam, said: “When you’re fully closed off and somebody taps your shoulder, it’s very uncomfortable.” “But when you’re using mixed reality, you’re still a very much part of the real world — you’re no longer surprised.”

Peeking into the outside world might also make V.R. gaming more comfortable. Tommy Palm, the chief executive of Resolution Games, said that in mixed reality, gamers would probably feel more confident playing games that involved fast movement.

In his game Blaston, where players shoot guns at each other in a virtual arena, people can crouch to avoid digital projectiles. Being able to see around you would help prevent collisions with objects in the room like furniture, he said.

Those examples of mixed reality sound convincing. But after spending a few hours with the Quest 3, I got the impression that the outward-facing cameras won’t solve virtual reality’s most nagging problems with comfort, which will prevent it from becoming a mainstream hit.

Weighing about 0.4 Kg, the headset felt heavy on my head after about 15 minutes, causing neck strain. The graphics were bright and intense on the eyes. Bending over, twisting around and swinging my arms eventually felt exhausting.

So the Quest 3 may be a fun toy to entertain house guests, but most gamers looking for a social experience will probably prefer the old-fashioned setup of sitting on their couch with a game controller.

The New York Times



The ‘Worst in Show’ CES Products Put Your Data at Risk and Cause Waste

The Ultrahuman Rare luxury smart ring is on display at the Ultrahuman booth during the CES tech show Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)
The Ultrahuman Rare luxury smart ring is on display at the Ultrahuman booth during the CES tech show Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)
TT

The ‘Worst in Show’ CES Products Put Your Data at Risk and Cause Waste

The Ultrahuman Rare luxury smart ring is on display at the Ultrahuman booth during the CES tech show Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)
The Ultrahuman Rare luxury smart ring is on display at the Ultrahuman booth during the CES tech show Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

So much of the technology showcased at CES includes gadgets made to improve consumers' lives — whether by leveraging AI to make devices that help people become more efficient, by creating companions to cure loneliness or by providing tools that help people with mental and physical health.
But not all innovation is good, according to a panel of self-described dystopia experts that has judged some products as “Worst in Show." The award that no company wants to win calls out the “least repairable, least private, and least sustainable products on display."
“We’re seeing more and more of these things that have basically surveillance technology built into them, and it enables some cool things,” Liz Chamberlain, director of sustainability at the e-commerce site iFixit told The Associated Press. “But it also means that now we’ve got microphones and cameras in our washing machines, refrigerators and that really is an industry-wide problem.”
The fourth annual contest announced its decisions Thursday.
A new smart ring every few years? Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, awarded the Ultrahuman Rare Luxury Smart Ring the title of “least repairable.”
The rings, which come in colors like dune and desert sand, cost $2,200. Wiens said the jewelry “looks sleek but hides a major flaw: its battery only lasts 500 charges.” Worse, he said, is the fact that replacing the battery is impossible without destroying the device entirely.
“Luxury items may be fleeting, but two years of use for $2,200 is a new low,” he said.
An AI-powered smart crib? Bosch’s “Revol” crib uses sensors, cameras and AI that the company says can help monitor vital signs like how an infant is sleeping, their heart and respiratory rates and more. The crib can also rock gently if the baby needs help falling asleep and signal to parents if a blanket or other object is interfering with breathing.
The company says users can how and where their data is stored. Bosch also says the crib can be transformed into a desk as children get older.
But EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn said the crib preys on parents' fears and “collects excessive data about babies via a camera, microphone, and even a radar sensor.”
“Parents expect safety and comfort — not surveillance and privacy risks — in their children’s cribs,” she said in the report.
Too much waste? Although AI is everywhere at CES, Stacey Higginbotham, a policy Fellow at Consumer Reports, felt that SoundHound AI’s In-Car Commerce Ecosystem, powered by its Automotive AI, pushes it to unnecessary extremes.
The feature “increases energy consumption, encourages wasteful takeout consumption and distracts drivers—all while adding little value,” Higginbotham said. That landed the in-car system as “least sustainable” on the list.
Vulnerable to hacking TP-Link's Archer BE900 router won for “least secure” of CES. The company is a top-selling router brand in the US But its products are vulnerable to hacking, said Paul Roberts, founder of The Security Ledger.
"By Chinese law, TP-Link must report security flaws to the government before alerting the public, creating a significant national security risk," he said. “Yet TP-Link showcased its Archer BE900 router at CES without addressing these vulnerabilities.”
Who asked for this? The awards also feature a category called “who asked for this?” Top of that list was Samsung's Bespoke AI Washing Machine, which Nathan Proctor, senior director of US PIRG, a consumer advocacy group, said is filled “with features no one needs,” including the ability to make phone calls.
“These add-ons only make the appliance more expensive, fragile, and harder to repair,” he said.
The worst overall Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association called the LG “AI Home Inside 2.0 Refrigerator with ThinkQ” the worst product overall. The fridge adds “flashy features,” Gordon-Byrne said, including a screen and internet connection.
“But these come at a cost,” Gordon-Byrne said. “Shorter software support, higher energy consumption, and expensive repairs reduce the fridge’s practical lifespan, leaving consumers with an expensive, wasteful gadget.”