John Carmack, ex-CTO for the Quest 3 and OG Doom developer, thinks AR is overrated

All of the best VR headsets on the market right now can paint you a picture of evolution. And while we can’t really say that we’ve gotten to a point where VR is truly adopted and meaningful to the masses, the XR industry has come a long way since its inception.

I mean, if we just compare the recently released Quest 3 with its predecessor, the Quest 2, we can instantly see the leap. Meta’s latest model is more powerful, more capable, more comfortable and its $500 price tag doesn’t come anywhere close to the Apple Vision Pro’s shocking $3,500.

Oh, and the Quest 3 also — finally! — offers some proper AR features too. And that last bit is something that John Carmack can’t really get behind. So is one of the greatest tech-minds of our time completely right or is he missing the point entirely?


Now, before we move onward, let me tell you a bit about John. He’s currently a consultant for Meta, but up until recently, he was a part of the company in the role of a CTO (chief technology officer). But back in the day, he was the lead programmer in this little game that you may have heard of called Doom. And then he went on to do miracles for tons of other groundbreaking games too.

So, yeah, Mr. Carmack is a big deal. But what is his beef with AR?

Well, basically, he doesn’t believe that it can be a driving force behind sales, like a lot of trailers make it out to be. AR has sort of become all the rage ever since Apple stirred the pot with the Vision Pro’s trailer, which showcases really impressive AR functionalities.



This statement is really interesting, because it is, in a way, absolutely true: the impressive AR capabilities of modern headsets means absolutely nothing without creative developers that can do something meaningful with them. 



In fact, John kind of throws shade at the Vision Pro, saying that headset trailers which showcase AR capabilities always take place in these clean and pristine environments — which is absolutely true — and that those don’t really match the reality that most users will be faced with.

As in, if your desk is cluttered, because you don’t have a house big enough to be able to afford it to not be, will these AR features work for you as good as they did for the person in the trailer? Food for thought, for sure.



And this one, I can’t really get behind. I mean, if we focus all of our efforts on making immersive virtual experiences, then what remains of reality? This would be a resounding cultural shock, in which I honestly I’d rather not take part of.