Quest 3 just began shipping last week and headsets are rapidly arriving in the hands of eager buyers. While the 128GB model appears to be in strong supply, the more expensive 512GB model might be more popular than Meta expected.

We checked stock availability for direct purchases from Meta.com for Quest 3 (128GB) and Quest 3 (512GB) across all regions where the headsets are sold. The latest shows that most regions estimate delivery of the 128GB model within one week, but the 512GB model won’t deliver for a week or more in most regions:

That seems surprising considering that Quest 3 is the company’s most expensive Quest headset yet, priced at $500 for the 128GB model and going up to $650 for the 512GB model.

There’s a few possible explanations for the current stock situation:

  • Meta underestimated demand for the 512GB model
  • Meta anticipated the demand for the 512GB model and set aside more of the initial inventory for third-party retailers
  • For some manufacturing reason, Meta couldn’t build up as much initial stock of the 512GB model, or can’t manufacture them as quickly

Of course, Quest 3 is also available in many other stores, like Amazon, Best Buy, and other regional retailers, each of which have different levels of stock.

We’ll continue to monitor the stock of both Quest 3 models to understand more about how they’re selling.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Ben Lang
Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • Torsten Balle Koefoed

    It’s hard to conclude anything from those numbers. I ordered the 512GB version on Oct. 4th with an estimated delivery on Oct. 27th but it arrived on the 13th instead. What does that mean? Does it mean anything? No idea.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    Option 4:
    – Meta overestimated demand for the 128GB model from non-enthusiasts

    With the Oculus Go, Meta was surprised that the more expensive model with 64GB at USD 249 sold more than the 32GB at USD 199, which they expected to be more popular. Their conclusion was that once the price was below the threshold for an impulse buy, reducing it further didn’t provide much more incentive, so people would go for the more capable model.

    Something similar may be at play here: once the current buyers had decided to buy a Quest 3, they went for what they perceive as the better value, not the lower price. Both the base price and the extra USD 150 for added storage is significantly more than the USD 50 on the Go, so it’s probably not the impulse buy level at play here. My wild guess is that most of the Quest 3 sold so far have gone to VR enthusiasts upgrading from previous headsets. Their purchase threshold may be more defined by Quest Pro or Bigscreen Beyond, so they’d already have an idea how much the Quest 3 features are “worth” compared to other headsets, and how much a lack of storage might impair the experience.

    “Underestimated demand for 512GB” and “overestimated demand for 128GB” would therefore not be the same. Meta would have built some initial stock for both prior to launch, possibly expecting to not be able to keep up with demand during the initial rush, with the cheaper model just below the psychologically important USD 500 investment barrier targeting new users, and the more expensive one enthusiasts. It is very unlikely that manufacturing is the issue, as the difference should be only either the number or size of flash modules used, making shifting production easy. The more likely reason is that they expected more new users to buy the cheaper Quest 3, as otherwise they would have shifted the production balance more towards the 512GB version.

    • Totius

      I bought the 512 Gb model, it arrived very quickly and I don’t regret. But it is also true that the price increase is insane.

      Christian, I do not know where to ask, so I will do it here. Do you know what has changed with Oculus/Quest link? I mean, the cable they are selling is the same, nevertheless I think that Quest 3 allows you to recharge the device, while you are using it. Do you recommend any specific properties that an unofficial cable should have? Some compatibility with Thunderbolt 4? USB c to USB c? If you can point out a link to some seller that would also be great!

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        I don’t know if they have changed anything about Quest Link. I’ve read in some reviews that power draw on Quest 3 is much higher due to the SD8 Gen 2, causing the battery to still drain even when connected to USB-C/a power bank, which worked fine on Quest 2 for the same users. So recharging while using Link on Quest 3 isn’t new, it just got harder.

        The problem with all USB cables is whether they comply to specs. USB has become a very capable monster, allowing for both high speed data transfer and high power delivery. High transfers require good shielding and connections, high power sufficiently thick wires and limited loss, and both get worse with longer cables. Unfortunately just because a cable claims to support 100W USB-PD or USB 3.2 SuperSpeedPlus doesn’t mean it actually works. The only way I have found to deal with this is to read lots of customer reviews before buying any of them, ideally describing their use with a Quest.

        Thunderbolt 4 compatibility could help. Technically it is USB 4, but while many features on USB 4, incl. the high speed data, are optional, they are all obligatory on TB4, requiring higher quality components. Which makes them rather expensive, and pretty much overkill for the use as with Quest Link. AFAIR VD supports up to 400Mbps bit rates, while TB4 go up to 40Gbps, 100x as much. Even “ancient” USB 3.0 from 2008 supports 5Gbps, 12.5x as much as needed, with the main problem being if a specific cable is able to deliver that speed stable over a length of 5m/15ft.

        • Totius

          I’ve been playing with the usb c cable included in the box of quest 3 (unfortunately very short, but it was included with the idea of just charging the headset) plugged into my PC thunderbolt port and I have the impression that the energetic balance was stable, because I could play for several hours. I guess a problem would have arisen if I would have also been using its capabilities as a substitute for a link cable.

  • JakeDunnegan

    I bought the 128GB. Removing games to add new ones is not a big deal.

    Paying $150 for 384GB of NVME style storage is highway robbery.

    • ViRGiN

      That’s cool. Valve charges 130 euros more for 512GB Steam Deck.

      • JakeDunnegan

        The difference on the SteamDeck though, is that it was a faster storage RAM and they added an additional carrying case on the top end model. From my understanding of the Quest 3 is it is simply just more RAM.

        I mean, overall, I’m extremely pleased with the upgrade. I wouldn’t have minded more storage RAM, but couldn’t justify $150+tax for it.

        • KRAKEN

          Bro, RAM = Random Access Memory, not storage.
          think of it as “short term memory”, very fast, expensive [comparatively], comes in small amounts, average mainstream size for modern computer is 32gb for DDR5, some people get 64GB and if you get more than 64Gb you know why you need it and you probably need it for work.

          Storage, is file storage aka SSD, eMMC, SD card, NVMe, Disk drive, hard drive all these words describe storage, permanent long term storage, where you copy games/porn to.

          For devices like Steam Deck or Quest 3, RAM is not front page advertised, its written somewhere in the spec sheet.
          Whats advertised is the permanent storage: 128Gb and 512Gb

          • ViRGiN

            How surprising! They are selling exclusively through steam, meaning they do not have to split any profits with any other companies.
            Quest 3 you can pick up from local brick and mortar store.
            Continue shilling for valve.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You are right about the conventional terminology, but technically flash storage is RAM. The difference is between volatile and non-volatile memory, meaning is the data lost once the power is turned off, and random access vs. sequential access, meaning can you access all data directly or do you first have to go through the data proceeding it, like on a tape drive. DRAM memory is volatile random access memory, SSD/eMMC/NVMe are non-volatile random access memory, and all of them are storage.

          • JakeDunnegan

            I’m well aware of what RAM is, which is why I called it “storage RAM”. Historically, there were hard disks, which were far more easily distinguished from RAM.

            But modern SSD and NVME drives are RAM. They’re chips on boards, similar to an DDR5.

            And, FWIW, on the SteamDeck, if you look closely, they specify that the 64GB storage is eMMC speed from the 256 and the 512 is NVME. In their marketing material, they call the second two models “better and best” storage. Probably different types of PCI-E models.

            With the Quest 3, they’ve made no such distinction.

          • KRAKEN

            RAM is RAM aka “Random Access Memory”
            Storage is not RAM, SSDs use NAND chips to store information, and the better SSD model also have small [ anywhere from as low as 32Mb to 1gb/ 2Gb for better models] amount of RAM used as cache.

            The main thing why RAM is not used for storage is that it only works while powered on, while it has electricity, when you power it down it clears itself, no power no storage. RAM cant save information without power like storage [NAND, HDD or any other]

            Also, RAM cant die from usage, it has no read/write cycles

            NAND [storage] has Read/Write cycles, when you use them up they either die or enter read only state.
            Even the best storage on planet: Optane has read write cycles, just more.

            RAM is RAM and Storage is Storage

            Steam Deck marketing is made for general public to be easily understandable, the better and best is for the sizes, also they used slower SSDs with just x2 lanes instead of x4, but it makes minimal diffrence

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You are talking about DRAM, not RAM. And there are storage solutions based on DRAM with extra batteries, and RAM disks as storage devices have been in use since the 1980s, to deal with the several magnitudes higher access times on HDDs.

            The practical main difference between DRAM and flash RAM storage isn’t the need for permanent power or the limited read/write cycles, mostly irrelevant with modern SLC flash anyway. The real distinction is that flash is organized in large blocks that cannot be overwritten directly, instead only completely deleted and rewritten. So you can change a few bytes on DRAM/SRAM very fast, but you have to clean/rewrite 64KB up to several megabyte on flash for even a single changed bit, taking much longer.

            LPDDR5 DRAM connected to a Snapdragon SoC can transfer up to 7.5GB/sec, speed ranges very fast NVMe drives can reach too when reading. The huge difference when writing/changing lots of small amounts of data is what makes flash (still) unfeasible as a DRAM replacement.

            RAM is RAM and Storage is Storage

            That’s just a tautology, not a useful statement. RAM is a description of a data access method, storage is a use case of memory. The terms describe very different concepts, not technical opposites, and today most storage is random access memory. It would be okay if you just referred to how the terms are used conventionally/in marketing, but implying that this is a technical distinction is nonsense.

          • KRAKEN

            You sound confused.

            Ill try this last time:
            You can’t call a storage drive RAM.

            There is no such thing as “flash RAM” it doesn’t exist, google it and see to which articles it takes you, i just did.

            RAM and DRAM are used to describe the same exact thing.
            RAM – Blanket Term for short term operational memory.
            DRAM – Type of RAM, another type for example SRAM.

            Permanent Storage: Hard drive [writes to platters], Flash memory writes to NOR or NAND. [its not flash RAM or flash DRAM or any other gobbledygook term you just invented, its NOR or NAND, thats the 2 types of FLASH memory that exists]

            RAM – Reads in Random, has insane 4K Read/Write speeds.
            NAND Flash – Reads in the form of a block at a time, usually 512 bytes or 4K at a time, thus it is cheaper and slower, doesn’t have a memory random read technique.

            A PCIE Gen 5 SSD that has 14GB/s sequential speed, is still as SLOW as SATA SSD at 4K1T random Reads, commercial SSDs have an average 60-70MB/s [Megabyte] of 4K Reads, some have less, some have tad more, crossing 100MB/s mark is rare.
            DDR3 2666Mhz an old type of RAM, can do over 20Gb/s reads, the cheapest and slowest DDR3 does 2GB/s, compare that to 80MB/s for 2TB Crucial T700 [Gen 5 PCIe 2TB model, 14GB/s sequential speed, info from Guru3D, took it as example for modern fast NVMe]

            And last big difference between RAM and FLASH memory NAND
            RAM be it DRAM, SRAM whataverRAM has unlimited amount of Writes/Erases.
            NAND, has limited amount of times it can write/erase the same block, as example: PCIe5 2Tb Crucial T700 has TBW of 1200, it can be written to and erased 1200 times and thats it, 1Tb model has half of that 600 TBW.

            The END….

            RAM even if it can be used as storage in special devices with backup power, is still RAM. not “Flash RAM” [a term you just invented]
            A product doesn’t change terminology.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Wikipedia on RAM, emphasis mine:

            Random-access memory (RAM) is a form of electronic computer memory that can be read and changed in any order, […]. A random-access memory device allows data items to be read or written in almost the same amount of time irrespective of the physical location of data inside the memory, […] RAM is normally associated with volatile types of memory where stored information is lost if power is removed. The two main types of volatile random-access semiconductor memory are [… ]SRAM and […] DRAM.

            Non-volatile RAM has also been developed and other types of non-volatile memories allow random access for read operations, but either do not allow write operations or have other kinds of limitations on them. These include most types of ROM and a type of flash memory called NOR-Flash.

            Nobody claimed that flash is equal to DRAM or could simply replace it, or that RAM is not usually understood as DRAM, but RAM is about random access to memory and simply not limited to DRAM/SRAM. NOR-Flash is currently used instead of DRAM in some edge cases, as it can be read/written byte-wise, instead of only page-wise as NAND-Flash, avoiding the problems mentioned above. And I didn’t invent the term ‘flash RAM’, I wrote ‘flash “RAM” storage’ to link it to JakeDunnegan’s comment referring to ‘storage RAM’, to distinguish it from DRAM.

          • KRAKEN

            The whole argument was that some idiots used the word RAM for NVMe storage, thats not it and never will be it.

          • KRAKEN

            RAM – Reads in Random, has insane 4K Read/Write speeds.
            NAND Flash – Reads in the form of a block at a time, usually 512 bytes or 4K at a time, thus it is cheaper and slower, doesn’t have a memory random read technique.

            A PCIE Gen 5 SSD that has 14GB/s sequential speed, but it still as SLOW as SATA SSD at 4K1T Random Reads [this is what matters and makes the PC feel fast, sequential speed is only needed for file copy, thats why good Gen3 SSD can easily beat standard Gen5 SSD].
            Commercial SSDs have an average 60-70MB/s [Megabyte] of 4K Reads, some have less, some have tad more, crossing 100MB/s mark is rare.
            DDR3 2666Mhz an old type of RAM, can do over 20Gb/s reads, the cheapest and slowest DDR3 does 2GB/s, compare that to 80MB/s for PCIe Gen5 2TB Crucial T700 [as example]

            also:
            RAM has unlimited amount of Writes/Erases.
            NAND, has limited amount of times it can write/erase the same block, as example: PCIe5 2Tb Crucial T700 has TBW of 1200, it can be written to and erased 1200 times and thats it.

            modern SSD is not even close to DDR5, its not even close to DDR3 and when you constantly use swap file you kill your ssd

        • ViRGiN

          So they are splitting their player base by offering a dogshit model, and if you want proper experience, you have to spend more? Well done Valve.

          I bought the 512 and also got 6 months of meta+ subscription, and full priced Asgard game.

          • CrusaderCaracal

            doesn’t asgard come with quest 3

          • Anonymous

            I think he meant pre-ordered for free. It is not possible to buy Asgard Wrath 2 now

          • Totius

            Rumors say that Meta is doing the same move, maybe even stronger, with Quest 3 lite.

          • ViRGiN

            Rumors say? No, sadlybradley says that. The same guy who constantly shills for Valve and we are yet to see anything of any substance from his cringeworthy work.

          • Cl

            Why you always find an excuse to bring up valve? At least the lower end model has expandable storage. Why didn’t meta give expandable storage? Oh yea, money.

          • ViRGiN

            Why lower end deck has reflective screen? Why valve is nickle and diming people for something that cost pennies? Why even have the option to offer subpar experience?
            Oh yea, money, cause for a little bit more you can have so much better.

      • KRAKEN

        512SD has glass anti reflective screen, carrying case.

        the price difference comes from switching from eMMC to actual NVMe drive [and IMO its not worth it, just buy yourself and swap]

        Here you have 128GB eMMC to 512GB eMMC aka garbage to garbage.

        • ViRGiN

          Anti reflective screen upgrade?
          So reflective screen is desirable? Should be standard.

          You also forgot to mention Valve is subsidizing Deck.

          • KRAKEN

            Reflective is not desrivble, anti-reflective is desireble

            Its made to help you play in sunlight, so the sun wont be reflected from the screen to your eyes.

            meta also subsidizes the quests,

          • ViRGiN

            so valve pisses on its customer, offering something that is never really desirable in the base option.
            anti reflective screen is not something that cost anywhere near as much as storage.

          • Cl

            The normal screen is fine. I got a screen protector and now it has no reflections

          • ViRGiN

            So valve skimped on cheap screen protector and couldn’t install it in factory?

        • shadow9d9

          Oh come on. It is the same thing. I have the 512 steam deck and previously owned a smaller variant. He is right.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          eMMC and NVMe use the same storage, the difference is the smarter controller and often a DRAM buffer on NVMe. That way NVMe drives can read/write data faster and perform more input/output operations per second (IOPS), important for e.g. databases dealing with lots of small requests.

          Games so far require neither continuous loading lots of data nor high IOPS, which is why neither using 256/512GB NVMe instead of 64GB eMMC nor running from an MicroSD card will make a huge difference on the Steam Deck performance wise. eMMC is basically a fixed MicroSD with integrated controller.

          Games will load slightly faster with NVMe. But all flash storage is so much faster than HDDs, which games were optimized for by loading data in chunks for, that it makes little difference. The execution of the game is what takes most of the time. The situation on Quest is very similar. It will change in the future with new architectures and technology like UE Nanite continuously pulling huge amounts of textures and geometry live into the GPU VRAM, allowing to swap all the graphics while you turn your head. But that will effect high end first, mobile VR will work fine with eMMC for quite some time.

    • Torsten Balle Koefoed

      TBF, you also get six months of Quest+.

      • ViRGiN

        shh, let haters hate, and allow them to grow their obsolete steamvr library

        • dextrovix

          Lol, the hater of Valve speaks pearls of wisdom once more…!

      • Garhert

        Yeah, but unfortunately you cannot gift/sell it so someone else. If you don’t want Quest+, you’ll have to hope a game you want to play comes out and then finish it within 6 months.

    • KRAKEN

      Its not even NVMe type, its the eMMC garbage

      • JakeDunnegan

        Is it? I wasn’t aware of that (and seems kind of shocking) do you have that confirmed somewhere? (honest question).

        • KRAKEN

          Build in Sstorage is always eMCC, only removable storage if its announced is NVMe

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You really need to start to do some fact checking before posting about storage technology. Built-in storage is not at all always eMMC, in fact today it is rarely eMMC, as eMMC (up to 250MB/sec) has been largely replaced by the much faster UFS (up to 5.9GB/sec) in higher end mobile devices. The SD 835 used in Quest 1 was the first Qualcomm chip to support UFS.

            NVMe is an interface specification for Non Volatile Memory, usually connected via PCIe, but it also runs over ethernet or infiniband. One form is removable SSDs in M.2 format, where it uses 4 PCIe lanes, but M.2 also supports other connections like SATA. Macbooks use NVMe controllers and flash soldered directly to the PCB, as do many other laptops.

            eMMC is still used in cheaper devices. The Steam Deck uses it on the 64GB version because the embedded controller supports TRIM operation, preventing a 50% drop in write performance once every block has been written once, which happens on MicroSD Cards that are technically the same. So MicroSD/eMMC is available as both built-in as well as removable, just as NVMe. You cannot conclude the interface just from that feature, you actually have to look up the specs, and eMMC is mostly used when the extra speed of UFS/NVMe isn’t needed or low cost is more important.

          • KRAKEN

            eMCC and eUFS is the same thing, one is just faster upgrade of another, its embedded single chips torage.
            NVMe is almost never soldred [on some laptops it does, especially apple], but NVMe is never single chip, it comes as controller + NAND, for good ones Controller+RAM+NAND

            If you have a phone, a quest 2, quest 3, you have eMMC and doesn’t matter if its eUFC is same exact thing with speed difference, but it will NEVER be NVMe

            You just defended the most idiotic usage of the word RAM: “RAM Storage”, you’ll be the last guy to teach anyone about anything related to computers.

          • JakeDunnegan

            Looks like Christian has already covered it below. But, as I mentioned above, the Steam Deck models have different storage. The 64GB model is eMMC and the 256 & 512 are NVMe – and they are not removable.

            I’d be very surprised if the storage on the Q3 is anything but NVMe at this point, as it is very cheap, and the interface makes for far faster loading of games and the like.

            I googled around and read reddit’s Quest subreddit and really didn’t find any information indicating it was eMMC. I did see a lot of people opting for the 128GB version though, giving my sentiments above. ;)

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            The storage interface of the SD8 Gen 2 is UFS 4.0 with 2.9GB/s per lane and up to two lanes, so not quite NVMe, but a similar interface designed for low power mobile devices. With the XR2 Gen 2 in Quest 3 derived from SD8 Gen 2, I’d expect it to use the same.

          • JakeDunnegan

            Ahh, gotcha – getting the storage type based on the interface of the processor? That makes sense – thanks for the info!

          • KRAKEN

            All Steam Deck Storage is self-upgradable. Anyone with a screwdriver can do that.
            Devices like quest have it soldered in, so its not removable nor upgradable, its eMCC because thats what it is due to size, NVMe is just too big

      • Jonathan Winters III

        “garbage” lol

        • KRAKEN

          Garbage indeed.

    • MeowMix

      my income don’t care; 512gb well worth it

      • JakeDunnegan

        I have some spare 500GB NVME drives that I upgraded away from. I’ll sell them to you for $200 a piece.

        • Lucidfeuer

          You should sell it for more, his income don’t care

          • JakeDunnegan

            ROFLMAO. Touche’

    • Arno van Wingerde

      I definitely is … but my 256 GB Quest2 is about full, and I do not want to offload games all the time.

    • Garhert

      The standalone HMD you get for $650 is still a very fair price. The SoC alone is probably worth $150, Qualcomm charges mobile phone manufacturers $160 for the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. And pure PCVR headsets are sometimes way more expensive.

      With the 128GB you have 102GB available. I assume games like AW2, AC Nexus, Ghostbusters, 7th Guest and Bulletstorm will all require 20-30GB. So you can play only up to 3 games in parallel without de-installing one. I don’t like that…

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        A significant portion of the price for a mobile phone SoC is for all the wireless data transfer patents required, and Qualcomm is famous for basically blackmailing the industry to buy their 4G/5G modems, by making the license fee for their patents unfeasible high for modems from competitors. Qualcomm in the past also has demanded 5% of the phone’s total price as royalty for including their modems instead of selling their chips at a fixed price. Even Intel had to drop out and sell their mobile modem business to Apple.

        So an XR2 Gen 2 without active modem parts should be much cheaper due on reduced patent fees, but will probably sell at much lower numbers, driving up production costs. Pancake lenses currently aren’t cheap either, so the USD 499 for the base model is most likely very fair. The current component price for the extra 384GB is about USD 24, so the USD 150 for the 512GB Quest includes a markup of about 500%.

        • Garhert

          Might be, I wasn’t aware about the patents. But my key statement remains the same, $650 is a good price for what you get. I don’t really care about the price difference of the storage. $499 is cheap and the 512GB model is probably subsidizing it. So be it.

          • JakeDunnegan

            I don’t blame anyone for buying either model.

            What seems to be missed by most commenters is my second point – $150 for 384GB of NVME storage is highway robbery. (Or $.39/gig)

            Because it is. Right now on Amazon, a 500GB Samsung 980 PCIE 3.0×4 is $39.95. (Or, just at $.08 per gig.)

            Whether you can afford it or not, isn’t the point. It’s still a money grab by Meta, at least in comparison to the 128GB.

            As you can see by my most puissant math skills, (/sarc), someone buying the more expensive model is paying almost 5 times more than the market price for that additional storage.

            Otherwise known as “highway robbery”. ;)

          • Garhert

            I totally agree, but read the comment from Christian Schildwaechter right above yours. This is exactly my point of view.

          • JakeDunnegan

            Yeah, I don’t disagree with that either. There likely is a bit of subsidizing…though, one wonders how much, since Meta hasn’t been doing that great, and it wasn’t that long ago when they had to do their little pricing dance and shuffle of the Quest 2.

            Someone mentioned that it’s eMMC storage instead of NVMe, which could well be, and is a cost cutting measure, IMO.

            And, regardless of whether it’s subsidized or not, I’m quite sure I won’t be the only one looking at the increased price, and the price of storage, and will draw the same conclusion. Not sure if that’s great for Meta or not.

            Either way, I hope the Quest 3 sells like hot cakes. It’s a great unit and a great upgrade, and I hope it moves the VR prevalence in gaming forward.

          • arczi79

            Yes… absolutely agree that the price difference between 128GB and 512GB is too big. Considering that both quests are underpriced the 128GB version should cost around 599USD (so the price difference between 128GB and 512GB is about 50USD max)

          • JakeDunnegan

            That’s fair, I suppose. And, heck, and thinking about it with complete honesty – I’d probably have pulled the trigger for the $650 if the extra 384GB was only a $50 difference.

            I have both versions of the Quest 2, and gave the one with more storage to my kids, and kept the 128GB one for myself as I stream quite a few from my PC anyway.

            But yours is an interesting observation and a LOT of what goes into making decisions on products is “perceived value” – it’s why so many prices on Amazon are “marked down” regardless of what their original selling price really would be.

          • arczi79

            In this case – who would buy the 128GB version? BTW: just be happy with the real bargain on the 128GB version and do not complain about the price difference ;)

          • JakeDunnegan

            LOL – well, the “underselling” is debatable. But let’s assume it’s legit.

            Zuckerberg owns Instagram and Facebook and Meta. Given that Instagram on its own is worth $100B, I imagine ol’ Zuck can afford to sell the 128GB version for $500 and the 512GB version for $600. See? closer in price, and still a version priced for the common man. Or something like that. :)

          • arczi79

            But Mark subsidies already these headsets… and definitely he is not Santa Claus to fulfil everyone’s wishes ;)

          • ViRGiN

            Do you know the markup on bottled water?

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Considering how much investment and research Meta needed to get to today’s HMDs, the USD 650 is probably a way more realistic price than the USD 499, and both are very cheap compared to their actual (development) costs. But it is understandable that people would prefer lower costs, and paying significantly more for extra storage hurts when everybody can compare the prices to those of SSDs on Amazon.

            The robbery claim is unfair though, as it looks at the storage upgrade price alone, ignoring that device prices are not only based on component prices, but a mixed calculation. Selling the larger model at a higher than necessary price allows selling the base model at an attractive entry price, which will hopefully entice more users to get a Quest 3 and thereby increase the user base and developer activity. Something those that could afford the extra USD 150 will ultimately benefit from too.

        • Dave

          I’m very happy with the price of the Quest 3 512GB. In the UK it’s exactly £100 cheaper than my former HP Reverb G2 which is £719. I’ve already abandoned the G2, as I’m getting close to it’s performance and for me the display is much better.

    • Dave

      I have a NAS with a 2.5Ghz connection using fast NVMe drives. If I could map a drive to the Quest 3, then I could upgrade it from 512GB to 10+TB!

      • JakeDunnegan

        Once they get the Air link working with the Q3, that’s easy enough to do by way of playing games on the PC and streaming to the Q3. I’m looking forward to trying out the new DLink router that’s made especially for Air link and the Quest units. Though, it would be really slick if you could use network attached storage directly with the Q3.

    • arczi79

      Yes… absolutely agree that the price difference between 128GB and 512GB is too big. Considering that both quests are underpriced the 128GB version should cost around 599USD (so the price difference between 128GB and 512GB is about 50USD max)

  • gothicvillas

    Everyone got burned with lack of space on Quest 2. It was a bo brainer for me.

    • CrusaderCaracal

      it’s just kinda weird choosing between barely enough space for a couple of games vs a ridiculous amount of space

      • Arno van Wingerde

        If you have a Quest2, maybe multiplying the storage used there by 2 (larger textures and games) might give you an indication which model you need. My 256 GB Quest2 is almost full, so I have no problem choosing which Quest3 I should go for.

    • Jonathan Winters III

      I have the 64gb version. Never filled it up completely. 128 should be just fine for most people. Unless they’re downloading large videos onto the device.

      • Nevets

        No.

  • ameba#23234 mdrea

    It’s almost like meta itself doesn’t believe there will be many AAA games to take up that space from the store…

    Meta is such a weird company

  • Well, people buying the headset now are mostly enthusiasts, which want the best model and know that 128GB may not be enough. The question is if this trend will be the same during Christmas

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Agreed, but an important question is whether Meta expected more new buyers to get a Quest 3 at launch because they made it more newbie friendly. For months Meta heavy emphasized the MR features, which are less important than performance/lenses for the enthusiasts, but might have convinced some that skipped the Quest 2 at USD 299, mainly due to the isolating and still rather cumbersome experience. Whether this Meta strategy worked will have a significant impact on sales and the future growth of the platform.

      The yearly huge sales peak during the holiday season was due to less technically inclined people handing out Quests to (mostly) teens as presents, so there the impact of improved usability due to MR should be less visible than the one from increasing the entry level price to USD 499.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        I wonder how many non-VR people even know about the Quest, but the 300 Quest2 was a nice-but-expensive Christmas present for my nephews. The 500-650 Quest3? Only if I win the lottery before Christmas!
        For people in the know: Red Matter2 looks absolutely amazing, showing that weird cartoon-like graphics are probably mainly laziness/incompetence/lack of tools of the developers. But Asgard’s Wrath and Assassin’s Creed are not out yet. Who could possibly screw up such a launch – it seems they did not learn much of the Quest “pro”….

        • hellatwix hack

          Just wanted to inform you, because you liked my comment about the Paperwhite 10th gen not being on update list a month ago – that Amazon will be updating it since they’re updating devices up to 4 years after they were last sold on Amazon.

          • Arno van Wingerde

            Thanks for taking the trouble! However, as a total Kindle Junkie, I have the 11th gen.

        • Nevets

          Very true. While to be fair to developers, producing games of that calibre will use a lot of resource for a relatively niche market, it is still clear that the absolute graphical rubbish that gets churned out is well below what they ought to be aiming for.

          Less verbosely, devs don’t try anywhere near hard enough.

  • Yencito

    First I bought 128gb model, but then I see that some new games will have 30-40 gb of size… I want to play the top games in my new HMD then I change it with the 512gb version.

  • Naruto Uzumaki

    4th possible explanation people are watching lots of xxx 8k movies in vr

  • Nevets

    Not surprising if true. The price difference is a particularly obvious example of profiteering.

    • Jonathan Winters III

      Yeah, but 512 is not even necessary. It’s meant for those who want it all and can afford to have it all.

      • Nevets

        People who want it all and can afford to have it all? It just means you aren’t going to run out of storage space in a year, is all. It’s not like it’s diamond encrusted

        • arczi79

          I am slowly running out of space on mine Q3 512… and not even recording anything on it :/

  • Arno van Wingerde

    I think the the 512 GB model is predominantly bought by Quest2 enthusiasts on day 1 (or close to it), where people new to VR, unsure whether the Quest3 is worth is, may largely opt for the 128 GB model. I can totally see the ratio of 128 GB models to 512 GB models to change toward the 128 GB model, once the first wave of “upgraders” comes to an end. I would expect the smallest model to get 256 GB in a year or so, since the limited capacity might deter people from buying games – not in Meta’s interests. This of course, will only happen after Meta milks the 150 price difference to the fullest, therefore I think this will take a year at least.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Upgrading the base model later is a dangerous strategy. Currently developers have to assume that a large part of the install base has only 64GB of flash, not only limiting how large a single game can be, but also how well games requiring a lot of space will sell, as users don’t want to constantly to delete and reinstall apps.

      Launching Quest 3 at 128GB will permanently restrict the acceptable size of Quest 3 apps, and Meta probably intended/accepted that. Current spot market price for 128GB MLC flash is ~USD 7.90, so launching the Quest 3 with 256GB at USD 499 would have been possible, they obviously just didn’t want to. Maybe even to keep developers somewhat restrained regarding the extra amount of storage requested by graphics updated for Quest 3.

      Owners of 64GB Quest 2 will soon face even more storage issues even without installing anything new, just from their installed apps getting higher resolution textures for Quest 3 they don’t benefit from, but still get with updates. There are ways to provide different binaries for Quest 2 and Quest 3, so waisting space for nothing on Quest 2 could be avoided. But unfortunately that requires separate builds, as Meta doesn’t provide a way yet for apps to decide which data to download based on the device they are installed on, causing lots of apps to now significantly grow even on Quest 2.

      • Cl

        They literally replaced the 64gb with 128gb for quest 2 and came out with a 256gb.

        So they already did this “dangerous strategy”.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          That’s why I consider it dangerous. Quest 2 released in 2020-10 with 64GB/256GB starting at USD 299. Following a facepad recall and short sales break in 2021-07, they upped the base model to 128GB, and one year later lifted the price to USD 399, citing increased component costs. That timeline made little sense. Quest 2 was launched early in the 2020-2023 global chip shortage. The 128GB came during the worst phase in late 2021, and the 2022-08 price hike two months after prices had started falling again, following a long period of high costs for flash.

          The “free” memory increase came at the worst/most expensive time, meaning it was probably driven by necessity. 64GB had proven to be very tight, and Meta hoped for a sales boost with the releases of RE4 VR in 2021-10 and Medal of Honor in 2021-10, requiring 8GB and 41GB. Had they still sold a 64GB base model by then, just those two games would have filled it completely. They also dropped the 256GB from USD 499 to 429 in 2023-03, three months before the 128GB went back to USD 299 and the 256GB to an all-time-low of USD 349.

          The base model was too small at launch, had to be increased for upcoming games, leaving developers stuck with a large base of users with very little space. They also had to drop the price for the larger model, probably because it wasn’t selling well. In retrospect it would have made way more sense to launch at 128GB, which is why I consider their 128GB Quest 3 baseline as dangerous. We already see that current games grow by up to 33% just from upgraded graphics, leaving little room to grow for future titles.

  • Arno van Wingerde

    I have no idea what is going on with Amazon in Germany, but there delivery dates for the 512 GB model stood at 4-7 months … January to April (just in time for the Pico 5). It has returned to a more “normal” 4 November now.

  • Mr Jolly

    why not allow the ability to add more memory? would save a lot of issues!