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



TikTok Warns of Broader Consequences if US Supreme Court Allows Ban

US, Chinese flags, TikTok logo and gavel are seen in this illustration taken January 8, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
US, Chinese flags, TikTok logo and gavel are seen in this illustration taken January 8, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
TT

TikTok Warns of Broader Consequences if US Supreme Court Allows Ban

US, Chinese flags, TikTok logo and gavel are seen in this illustration taken January 8, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
US, Chinese flags, TikTok logo and gavel are seen in this illustration taken January 8, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The lawyer for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance offered a warning during Supreme Court arguments over a law that would compel the sale of the short-video app or ban it in the United States: If Congress could do this to TikTok, it could come after other companies, too. The law, which was the subject of arguments before the nine justices on Friday, sets a Jan. 19 deadline for ByteDance to sell the popular social media platform or face a ban on national security grounds. The companies have sought, at the very least, a delay in implementation of the law, which they say violates the US Constitution's First Amendment protection against government abridgment of free speech, Reuters said.
Noel Francisco, representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued that Supreme Court endorsement of this law could enable statutes targeting other companies on similar grounds.
"AMC movie theaters used to be owned by a Chinese company. Under this theory, Congress could order AMC movie theaters to censor any movies that Congress doesn't like or promote any movies that Congress wanted," Francisco told the justices.
The justices signaled through their questions during the arguments that they were inclined to uphold the law, although some expressed serious concerns about its First Amendment implications.
TikTok is a platform used by about 170 million people in the United States, roughly half the country's population. Congress passed the measure last year with overwhelming bipartisan support, as lawmakers cited the risk of the Chinese government exploiting TikTok to spy on Americans and carry out covert influence operations.
Jeffrey Fisher, the lawyer representing TikTok content creators who also have challenged the law, noted during the Supreme Court arguments that Congress with this measure was focusing on TikTok and not major Chinese online retailers including Temu.
"Would a Congress (that is) really worried about these very dramatic risks leave out an e-commerce site like Temu that has 70 million Americans using it?" Fisher asked. "It's very curious why you just single out TikTok alone and not other companies with tens of millions of people having their own data taken, you know, in the process of engaging with those websites and equally, if not more, available to Chinese control." Democratic President Joe Biden signed the measure into law and his administration is defending it in this case. The deadline for divestiture is just one day before Republican Donald Trump, who opposes the ban, takes office as Biden's successor.
'FOREIGN ADVERSARIES'
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Biden administration in defending the law, said it was crucial that it take effect on Jan. 19 as scheduled in order to force ByteDance to act on divestiture.
"Foreign adversaries do not willingly give up their control over this mass communications channel in the United States," Prelogar said.
"When push comes to shove, and these restrictions take effect, I think it will fundamentally change the landscape with respect to what ByteDance is willing to consider. And it might be just the jolt that Congress expected the company would need to actually move forward with the divestiture process," Prelogar said.
If the ban takes affect on Jan. 19, Apple and Alphabet's Google would no longer be able to offer TikTok for downloads for new users but existing users could still access the app. The US government and TikTok agree that app would degrade and eventually become unusable over time because companies would not be able to offer supporting services.
The Supreme Court also debated whether the possibility of TikTok being used for covert influence campaigns or propaganda purposes by China justified the banning it.
"Look, everybody manipulates content," Francisco told the court. "There are lots of people who think CNN, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times are manipulating their content. That is core protected speech." Trump on Dec. 27 urged the court to put a hold on the Jan. 19 deadline to give his incoming administration "the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case."
Under the law, the US president has the power to extend the Jan. 19 deadline for 90 days, but under circumstances that do not appear to apply to the current situation in which ByteDance has made no apparent effort to sell TikTok's US assets. The law mandates that the president certify that significant progress has been made toward a sale, with binding legal agreements.
Regardless, Trump does not become president until after the deadline - though Francisco said "we might be in a different world" once Trump is back in the White House.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Prelogar whether the president could "say that we're not going to enforce this law?"
"I think as a general matter, of course the president has enforcement discretion," Prelogar said.
"Again, that's one of the reasons why I think it makes perfect sense to issue a preliminary injunction here and simply buy everybody a little breathing space," Francisco said.