[drzaiusapelord]

There's a real Hyundai/Honda relationship here. They're similar products but the Vive has a slight edge as the more premium VR headset. The lighthouse based tracking is rock-solid while the CV based tracking of the Rift has been historically iffy. Worse, you'll need to spring for a 3rd camera if you want to get serious about roomscale. So that's another $79.

The Vive already has an accessory ecosystem as companies are more willing to invest in the more 'open' system. You can buy a thinner cable, various comfort gaskets, a complete wireless solution (only in China for now), non-controller trackers to attach to your body or objects in your playspace (still mostly devs doing this), a foveated rendering plugin (just anounced), etc.

You get a slightly wider FOV and a lot more room if you wear glasses. Also a built-in camera, which is a little gimmicky, but a godsend if you want to move a chair, read a text message, move the cat, etc without taking your headset off.

You're also supporting Valve and SteamVR which does not engage in the dirty business of exclusives or "walled garden" approaches like the Facebook/Oculus model. There are also privacy issue with the Oculus software. Even when its not running it has a encrypted connection to Facebook's server constantly.

Lastly, it seems to be the dev favorite. A few of the betas I've been involved with have been Vive-only.

That said, the Vive needs a price cut. It occasionally gets $100 off. I'm hoping they make that permanent.

[agar]

Sigh. Each HMD has pros and cons. You do the industry a disservice by warping facts.

Lighthouse tracking is indeed excellent, and tracks a larger volume. However, the Rift's sensor approach is /currently/ almost indistinguishable from Vive's tracking. Its historical performance, significantly hampered by a bad software update, has no relevance to someone considering an HMD today.

A third sensor is only $59, not $79. Saying "worse, you'll need to spring for..." implies this is somehow a severe negative, when the reality is that the extra cost of a third sensor still leaves the Rift over $100 less than a Vive (the magnitude of price difference depends on shipping costs and how you value the bundles of free software).

Again, while Lighthouse tracking can be considered "more premium", the general consensus is that the Rift has more fit and finish, is significantly lighter in the front and thus more balanced, has better optics (larger sweet spot and less screen door effect), and the convenient integrated audio (which can be removed if you have high-end headphones) all lead to it being thought of as "more premium" in other ways. The Vive's design, while exceedingly functional, is more "hacker chic" than "honed design".

Of course, the above positives on the Rift are traded off by a slightly smaller field of view, a somewhat dimmer screen, and less compatibility with glasses vs. the Vive.

Additionally, complaining about the cost of a third camera is disingenuous when you then talk about all of the other incremental (added cost) options available to the Vive. Some will come to Rift (e.g., wireless), some bring the Vive to parity (e.g., thinner cable, comfort gaskets, and [unmentioned] a more comfortable head strap with integrated audio), and some are truly cool (e.g., eye tracking and trackers) for those wishing to really be at the cutting edge of VR. But all significantly increase the cost delta.

Finally, implying something nefarious about the "encrypted connection to Facebook's server" is really beneath the level of discourse I expect from HN. The Oculus software checks for updates over a TLS-encrypted session - that is all, as has been confirmed by network analysis. Frankly, I would be upset if it didn't use encryption to protect my information.

The Vive is a fine product, and stands on its own. You do not need to provide misleading or biased information about its competitor to promote it.

The fact is, both HMDs are great. Do you have a 15'x15' space? Buy a Vive. Is price a factor, or do you run on lower-end hardware? Buy a Rift.

Otherwise, try them both, see which fits your face better, see which trade-offs work for you, and buy the one that makes you happy.

You can't go wrong, and VR is SPECTACULAR.

[greggman]

Vive's works with multiple people in the same space, Rift's does not. So there is a relevance to someone considering an HDM today.

There are VR experiences were 2+ people are in the same sim in the same space. There are also VR spaces (arcades, tradeshows) where if there are 2 rifts near each other (2 adjacent booths) the rifts interfere with each other

[meheleventyone]

The Vive also interferes if two different sets are setup such that the lighthouses overlap. Two of my coworkers had to setup a curtain because of it.

[greggman]

You don't need 2 lighthouses for multiple vives

[meheleventyone]

Indeed but that's not always feasible and still doesn't alter the fact that the lighthouses interfere with one another if the laser scanned regions overlap. Hence the curtain.

[TwoBit]

Rift is still cheaper, and wims on a number of other fronts, especially quality of applications. Optics are better, less screen door, sharper to edge of view vs Vive which gets blurry. Oculus controllers are clearly better.

The fact that you bring up Facebook shows that you are a technology zealot, and such people are always adverse to facts.