Varjo announced it’s now supporting Quest 3 and Quest Pro for its cloud XR streaming platform ‘Reality Cloud’, which lets professionals stream and share immersive 3D content rendered on cloud-based GPUs.

The Finland-based creator of high-end XR headsets is known for its pricey, but high-quality mixed reality headsets, which are primarily used in the enterprise space for designers and engineers, but also for things such as detailed simulation and training.

You don’t need to plonk down the $3,990 for the company’s base model Varjo XR-4 headset though to use its subscription-based Varjo Reality Cloud service, which offloads intensive XR or VR software rendering to powerful cloud-based GPUs—previously only available to Varjo’s line of enterprise devices.

The update, announced April 5th, brings support to Varjo Reality Cloud to Quest 3 and Quest Pro, making them the fist non-Varjo XR devices to use the subscription-based cloud rendering and streaming service.

Additionally, the company also released an iOS application in February, letting users also access the cloud-rendering platform from a host of iPhone and iPad models.

SEE ALSO
Quest 3 is Getting AI Vision Features While Apple Intelligence on Vision Pro Still Isn't Confirmed

Granted, it’s no surprise the company has opened its cloud streaming platform to other headsets and mobile devices; the company told us exactly that when we went hands-on with Varjo Reality Cloud back in 2022, noting that the move was targeted at making it easier to scale XR more broadly inside of organizations.

If you’re interested in using Varjo Reality Cloud with Quest devices, check out this guide on how to install it on Quest, which takes you through the process of sideloading the company’s Quest apk file.

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.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Andrew Jakobs

    That makes perfectly sense, as the money us in software services, not hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also gonna support the Pico 4 (Pro/enterprise) and HTC’s XR elite headset and many more.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    What’s missing in the article is an explanation why Varjo has to provide a guide how to install their client app on Quest, requiring a developer account for side-loading: Meta still prohibits any clients for VR cloud streaming services on both the Quest store and App Lab, similar to initial prohibiting VR streaming via Wifi, forcing VirtualDesktop to remove the feature from the official app and then add it back in with a side loaded patch.

    I assume they again claim that this is to protect users, even though side loaded clients for e.g. PlutoSphere work pretty well, and everybody can create their own VR cloud with VirtualDesktop running on either a rented ShadowPC, or their gaming PC with proper router configuration. John Carmack made some remarks about internal discussions at Meta regarding “minimal acceptable quality” completely ignoring that people were already working around the restrictions because they really wanted the feature, and were just fine with the quality, rendering the argument moot.

    And just like with VR streaming over Wifi, I’m pretty sure that Meta will remove this artificial restriction the moment they want to offer their own VR cloud streaming service (and properly monetize it). Then all of a sudden all you have to do to experience high end PCVR quality on any Quest is install a simple app and subscribe to a service similar to Geforce Now or the Varjo Reality Cloud. Which we could have had for years, if only Meta wouldn’t intentionally sabotage it

    • Dragon Marble

      Who are you complaining on behalf? Just like the old, “sabotaged” VD before, people who want it can side load; those unwilling to jump through loops are not dying to get it.

      And there are legitimate concerns with the quality. You have to think like a normal regular Quest user, and not assume everyone is like you.

      Compare the VD situation against Apple’s practice. Do you know the loops I jumped through just to use my own Bluetooth headphones with the Vision Pro? They almost coerced and tricked me into buying an Airpods Max! I like that they’re getting sued for this.

      • ViRGiN

        that guy is just unhinged, trying to sound smart every time.
        the same john carmack he is referring to, did not believe in 6dof controllers.
        john has not worked at meta for what feels like ages now.
        not every 90s visionary is right every time.

        christian also purposfully with his own agenda did not mention that the controversy about virtual desktop strays from guy godin _LYING_ to meta when submitting his app.

        godin has made millions, yet his hate for meta did not diminish; he is only relevant since he _stole_ Meta technology of spliced encoding, which they have shared for free.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Despite sideloading, Epic successfully sued Google for locking out competition, because making it artificially hard still counts as sabotaging. Sidequest’s PC client made sideloading very comfortable for regular users and saw growing acceptance, until Meta stopped that by introducing App Lab, channeling all money and feedback back to Meta, while removing the undesirable (for them) discoverability of Sidequest.

        Officially App Lab’s purpose is to allow experiments and custom apps like training software, so “user protection” cloud streaming restrictions make no sense, given the rubbish that is allowed there. And there are no “legitimate concerns” regarding cloud streaming that don’t apply to Wifi streaming the same way. Cloud services are very fast. My Geforce Now server is more than 1000km away, which adds less than 4ms of latency. You’ll get higher latency from your own PC if it is connected via Wifi on an older router/you live in a crowded area. And by now the network isn’t the main part of VR streaming latency, instead it’s the time spend with encoding/decoding the video signal, which sets the hardware limits to how low streaming latency can get on Quest 2.

        Meta prohibiting cloud streaming on App Lab is pure protectionism (of app sales, not users). Whataboutism won’t change that, even if Apple is a worse offender. Apple claimed they stuck to lightning to protect the user’s previous investment, but it’s really about fees for the proprietary connector. They pointed out that most users never upgraded RAM or SSD, but soldering them in allows them to charge 4x the market price. They are lying with a thin veil of “protecting our customers”. Just like Meta.

        • Dragon Marble

          It’s not whataboutism. Here’s the difference. In both Google and Apple’s cases, they got caught red-handed. You, on the other hand, are accusing Meta of a future crime it has yet to commit. Meta is not locking out competition because currently it does not offer a competing product.

          Meanwhile, there’s plenty of evidence to show that cloud service hasn’t achieved necessary reliability and consistency. “It works for some people” is not good enough for a console platform.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Meta has been caught often enough. They themselves state that they sell hardware at production costs, eating all the development costs, which makes it impossible for others to compete based on price without also burning billions. They practically killed the competition. Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram to buy their way to market dominance instead of competing based on product features have been examined by the FCC, and were one reason why Meta actually split the XR user away from Facebook into Meta, expecting to be forced to split up their companies again. The acquisition of Supernatural was almost stopped by British authorities, because again Meta was using its money to gain dominance in a developing market instead of trying to compete with their own product. Consumers benefit from a market with lots of companies, driven by competition, which is why large companies are not allowed to simply buy all their competitors until only they remain. Meta’s messing with VirtualDesktop is well known, and the reason why they even allowed any PCVR streaming was so they could kill the Rift line without getting sued by Rift customers that had bough software that would no longer be useable if the Quest plus Link cable didn’t offer an option.

            There can be no doubt that Meta very actively tries to buy their success instead of competing with others on an even playing field, often bordering what is considered illegal anti-competitive behavior. These “crimes” have already been committed. Killing SideQuest business model to preemptively stop sideloading from ever becoming widespread and SideQuest a potential competitor, or prohibiting cloud streaming while allowing much worse experiences on App Lab are just more of them. And that’s not even mentioning what they did/do with user data.

          • Dragon Marble

            None of the things Meta is doing in the XR space is illegal or unethical.

            If they sell Quest 2 at $500, the result is not better VR for everyone, but no VR for anyone.

            Listen, in tech, it’s big money that turns good ideas into good products. You need to accept that, and stop dreaming about a thrilling VR industry full of many small players. The world stopped working like that a long time ago.

            And what are you even suggesting? Meta is not allowed to have AirLink because of VD (and other steam apps before it)? It is not allowed to have its own early access program because someone else built a website called Sidequest?

            If you are for competition, then big companies are allowed to compete too. In both examples, consumers benefitted in the end.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I don’t have to accept anything, esp. your “only mega cooperations can save us” ideas that very obviously aren’t true in most areas of technology. Meta’s unique position is very rare, duopolies like Google/Apple in mobile the exception. We have many competing CPU architectures/companies/foundries in several market segments, lots of car manufacturers, hundreds of cheap phone brands, and a gazillion of different home appliances from uncounted OEMs.

            And the only thing Meta shouldn’t be allowed is to forbid others to do certain things until Meta is ready to compete. AirLink is fine. Prohibiting VR from incorporating Wifi streaming for made up reasons until Meta could offer their own solution was not. That is not competition, that is abusing your position to stop a competitor from gaining an advantage based on quality, until you have finally caught up.

            And in contrast to you world view, I’m pretty sure that the recent regulatory initiatives of both the EU and US will significantly reduce the ways the tech giants we got in the last two decades use their positions to defend their market share by writing the rules in their favor instead of competing. Apple being force to open their App store and payment system will be just the beginning, there is more to come for them, Google, Meta, Amazon and the other trillion dollar companies that grew based on network effects.

        • perVRt

          Sorry to pile on smarty pants with all these Meta-suckups, but Cloud Streaming is about as oxymoronic as you can get! If you are going to do that then might as well go back to X11.