{"id":833563,"date":"2026-07-29T11:47:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T11:47:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/833563\/"},"modified":"2026-07-29T11:47:13","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T11:47:13","slug":"metas-first-thin-light-vr-headset-reportedly-appears-in-user-setup-video-ahead-of-connect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/833563\/","title":{"rendered":"Meta’s First Thin & Light VR Headset Reportedly Appears in User Setup Video Ahead of Connect"},"content":{"rendered":"

A user setup video has reportedly surfaced of Meta\u2019s long-rumored thin and light VR headset, suggesting we may see its official unveiling at Connect in September.<\/p>\n

The News<\/p>\n

The images below reveal a blurry look at what is unmistakably Meta\u2019s upcoming puck-tethered VR headset, which has been referred by number of internal codenames over the years: Puffin, Loma, and now Phoenix.<\/p>\n

\"\"Courtesy \u2018ToastConcern\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"Courtesy \u2018ToastConcern\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"Courtesy \u2018ToastConcern\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"Courtesy \u2018ToastConcern\u2019<\/p>\n

First discovered by X user \u2018ToastConcern<\/a>\u2018 in Quest\u2019s firmware, the images above are actually screenshots of the device\u2019s initial setup video, captured in full by \u2018NoriDoesVR<\/a>\u2018. See the full video below:<\/p>\n

I managed to get the updated device fit and eye tracking setup to work on my headset! <\/p>\n

This is not 100% accurate, as I had to make some tweaks to get it working, but this represents some of Meta’s WIP NUX for Phoenix :3 https:\/\/t.co\/jyNtBcOkLU<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/k5aObbt2cE<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Nori \ud83e\udd88 (@noridoesvr) July 29, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

As confirmed in the work-in-progress video, Phoenix features a slim, almost glasses-like profile, independent lens spacing, removable nose clips for individual user comfort, and built-in hand and eye-tracking. More importantly, it\u2019s said to feature a tethered compute puck, which offloads the bulk of the weight from the user\u2019s head.<\/p>\n

While those images of Phoenix are intentionally blurry, it\u2019s very similar to a render generated by data miner and serial leaker \u2018Luna<\/a>\u2018, which was based off their impressions of the device.<\/p>\n

\"\"Meta \u201cPhoenix\u2019 render | Courtesy \u2018Luna\u2019<\/p>\n

Considering Meta is now just including user setup content in Quest\u2019s firmware, it looks increasingly possible the company is hoping to unveil it at its annual Connect developer event. <\/p>\n

Connect is set to kick of on September 23\u201324, 2026. While the company teased what seems to be a new pair of smart glasses<\/a>, the event is also focusing on \u201cthe latest in VR, wearables, metaverse, and AI.\u201d<\/p>\n

My Take<\/p>\n

TL;DR: Meta has taken its past failures and largely translated them into wins, although I\u2019m still skeptical that the component crisis hasn\u2019t introduced more friction in VR hardware development than Meta can reasonably stomach. <\/p>\n

According to a previous report <\/a>from The Wall Street Journal last year, Meta was internally hoping to price Phoenix somewhere under $1,000. Considering both RAM and storage have skyrocketed since this time last year, and now Qualcomm chips are getting a price hike too, Meta\u2019s next premium VR headset may be particularly premium, which could be setting the company up for another uphill battle. <\/p>\n

That said, higher component prices are a new level of friction is affecting almost every company right now hoping to release something that doesn\u2019t cost the equivalent of a black market kidney, Steam Frame included<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Anyway, here\u2019s how Meta\u2019s strategy stands today, at least according to previous rumors and reports: in addition to Phoenix, Meta is still reworking its Quest 4 strategy, which could conceptually put the two devices in different segments\u2014a high-end device for prosumers and professionals (Phoenix), and the lower-end console for consumers (Quest 4). This is essentially the same strategy Meta tried when it first offered Quest Pro, but failed at fairly quickly, so it\u2019s not without risk.<\/p>\n

\"\"Quest Pro | Courtesy Meta<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong. Quest Pro was a great first-gen device for 2022, but it was expensive at the launch price of $1,500. Meta eventually realized this, lowered the price to $1,000 and accelerated the launch of Quest 3, which not only subsumed a lot of Quest Pro\u2019s abilities (minus the eye-tracking) but did it at a third of the price. It turned a failure into a quick win.<\/p>\n

With Phoenix though, Meta has an opportunity to offer a real productivity device, owing to its small form-factor and focus on long-term user comfort. But if Meta can\u2019t capitalize on Phoenix, it\u2019s possible consumers may not see the downstream effects like it did when Quest Pro gave up the ghost and Quest 3 and Quest 3S took its place.<\/p>\n

Can Meta pull it off again? I\u2019m skeptical. Meta could decide tomorrow it simply doesn\u2019t care about consumer VR headsets, cancelling any affordable Quest successor and favoring productivity-focused VR from now on. I certainly hope that isn\u2019t the case, although it\u2019s pretty evident at this point we\u2019re in the middle of a VR winter in terms of content development, which could stymy consumer engagement and attraction in the future.<\/p>\n

That said, Meta has proven itself agile enough in the past to make it work either way. The company has a history of releasing VR devices that typically take on multiple purposes after the fact, and end up serving their next hardware strategy, \u201cfailure\u201d or not.<\/p>\n

\"\"Oculus Quest (left), Rift S (right) | Courtesy Meta <\/p>\n

Some increasingly ancient-feeling history: released in 2019, Oculus Rift S was a marked improvement over the original Oculus Rift CV 1, which had arrived three years prior. Rift S not only allowed Meta (then Facebook) to appeal to upgraders looking for a new headset within the same PC VR ecosystem, but also extract as much money from Rift\u2019s back catalogue of apps before giving up on PC VR gaming entirely, as the company moved on to largely concentrate on developing its Quest standalone platform. Whether that was the intention or not doesn\u2019t really matter; the company had a strategy that allowed it to capitalize on the launch of one piece of hardware to benefit the next.<\/p>\n

The same happened with Quest. Launching alongside Rift S, the original Oculus Quest performed well enough, although it lacked power, couldn\u2019t play the same games as Rift without a tether, and was priced at $400 for the 64GB\u2014three areas Quest 2 would immediately improve upon a short year later, culminating in the company\u2019s best-selling VR headset to date. The original Quest was a glorified developer kit. <\/p>\n

Whatever the case, we\u2019re sure to learn something about Meta\u2019s future VR strategy at Connect in a few weeks, and possibly sooner, as the company has a pretty terrible track record at keeping anything but its most sacred one-off prototypes under wraps.<\/p>\n