Is The Quest 3S Meta’s Most Affordable Mixed Reality Headset?

When the Meta Quest 3 launched in October last year, it quickly established itself as more than just an upgraded Quest 2; it was a whole new ball game!

Together with its wonderfully-responsive touch controls, the Meta Quest 3 offered far more than just a more streamlined, comfortable virtual reality headset with outstanding visuals and exceptional performance. It took MR experiences to a new level and became the byword for affordable headsets.

Meta has reengineered Horizon OS specifically for spatial computing, enhancing compatibility with vital 2D applications such as YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. They have enhanced spatial audio and increased the contrast and colour of Passthrough, resulting in a more realistic and immersive experience. In comparison to the Quest 2, the Quest 3 was a significant advancement. Sure, it was more expensive than the Quest 2, but the enhanced functionality made up for that. 

Enter the 3S

Meta recognised that the price of the Quest 3 was still a bit of a barrier to mass take-up – a goal for any commercial company – and decided to develop a reduced-cost product, which is now known as the 3S.

The thinking behind the 3S is quite simple; Meta would introduce a VR/AR product that would be based on the Quest 3, and have similar specifications but with a significantly lower price tag. The 3S has been designed to:

• Double Quest 2 graphics performance
• Use mixed reality that is good enough to use a phone with the headset in place
• Have IR sensors that automatically map your room or area
• Include ringless controllers are comfortable to hold and use
• Be incredible value when compared to other market offerings.

What Are the Specs?

The 3S is based on the physical and electronic architecture of the Quest 3, and the differences between the two devices is closer than you may think, given the difference in price. Basically, the key differences boil down to:

• Internal storage. The 3S has 128Gb, compared to the 512Gb of the Quest 3.
• Lenses. The Quest 3 uses Pancake lenses and the 3S Fresnel lenses.
• Resolution. A product of the lens choices, the Quest 3 achieves 2,064 x 2,208-pixel resolution, with refresh rates of 72Hz, 80Hz, 90Hz, and 120Hz, while the 3S puts out 1,832 x 1,920-pixel display resolution and 90Hz and 120Hz refresh rates.

Both systems have the Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chip and 8Gb of RAM, making them pretty comparable on performance. So really, with the Quest 3, an extra £150 buys you a different lens and a bit more resolution. We have found in our own use of the Meta devices, that 512Gb of space is enormous, and probably too much for the everyday user. Having 128Gb of storage will give you around 60 games and Apps, even after system files are in place, and then still leaving some room for a bit of expansion.

You may be scratching your head over the 75Hz setting on the Quest 3, and why you would want to use it. Basically, it’s there for PCVR players; by reducing the refresh rate, you can gain better resolution but without taking a hit on performance. That fact alone marks the Quest 3 out as being more of a professional gamer set-up, rather than the implied casualness of the 3S.

Any other differences don’t really add up to much. Both devices have full-colour passthrough which is sufficiently good to allow the user to have conversations, make phone calls, and not bump into furniture in a room, or even things outside. The Fresnel lenses make the 3S slightly bulkier and it also has a weight disadvantage of a gram or two – so no disadvantage at all. Battery life is actually slightly better than the Quest 3 due to lowered performance.

So, What’s with Lenses?

As already said, the Quest 3 has Pancake lenses, while the 3S has Fresnel lenses. But what does that actually mean, and what are the differences?

• Fresnel Lenses. These were first developed by Augustin Fresnel in the early 1800s and function by directing and amplifying light, similar to a lighthouse. The lens employs concentric rings of crystalline prisms organised in a beehive configuration to reflect and refract light. This design in VR headsets produces a “lighthouse-beamed screen” look, necessitating a considerable distance between the display and lens, hence increasing the thickness and weight of the headset. As enterprises adopt the metaverse, mixed reality, and spatial computing—exemplified by platforms such as Microsoft Mesh and devices like Microsoft HoloLens—optimising this cumbersome architecture is essential for the advancement of immersive experiences in the industrial metaverse and beyond.
• Pancake Lenses. Pancake optics, although appearing to be a relatively new idea, have been utilised by the military and scientific community much before its adoption in virtual reality. The first Pancake VR headset prototype was developed by eMargin in 2015, succeeded by Kopin’s “Kopin Elf” in 2017. Recently, firms including Huawei, HTC, Pico, and EM3 have either introduced commercial Pancake-enabled headsets or presented prototype designs. This type of optics, however, integrates many lenses, reflecting light within the glass or plastic. This allows a more streamlined design, minimising the distance between the display and the user’s eyes while eradicating distortion problems and chromatic aberrations associated with Fresnel lenses. 

Virtual reality headsets have reached a key milestone with the introduction of pancake lenses. Because of their small size, enhanced image quality, and easier calibration, they are perfect for creating a virtual reality experience that is both stylish and immersive. Pancake lenses will play a significant part in pushing the shift that the industry, which is working towards making VR more accessible and user-friendly, is aiming for.  

The bottom line is that the pancake lenses offer better performance and occupy less room in the hardware, leaving space for bigger batteries and storage space, or contributing to making the headset smaller.

Would We Buy a 3S?

You bet!!  The technical differences between the Quest 3 and the 3S is actually quite low given the money that we are being expected to part with to get our hands on the headsets. However, it’s just as easy to say that the other way, and get a reasonable improvement in optics and storage, for not much more money.  To our mind, the Quest 3 and 3S occupy slightly different places, with the smaller brother being something of an entry-level device, pitched against the more professional Quest 3. 

Both of these devices are more than adequate for VR use and the 3S is definitely the most affordable MR headset out there at present. We applaud Meta’s efforts to make XR accessible to all, and the competitively-priced 3S is where the market needs the product right now. We will no doubt get a ‘Quest 4’ at some point – even if it does take a completely different form – and we hope that Meta factor in a slightly lower performing ‘S’ version of that too.

We at Unity Developers love XR. If you have an App or game that you need developed, why not contact us, and see how we can streamline the process for you.