I'm not the OP, but I have both the Oculus and the Vive and, to me, the Vive is a much better experience. For me, the big issue is that, while the Rift is a bit easier to set up (but not by much), the tracking is just not good enough to get that immersive experience. As soon as you lose tracking once, it throws the whole thing out the window. The Vive's tracking is pretty flawless. The Rift, on the other hand, is finicky and, if you even attempt the room scale setup with touch, you'll feel like someone trying to mess with an analog TV antenna.
With the Rift, I'm initially impressed with it (resolution is better, headset is lighter, etc) but then constantly reminded that this is new tech. With the Vive, it's clunkier and more pixelated (not by much) but I forget completely about all of it when I'm deeply immersed in a game.
Tracking might be "resolved" but man three usb3 cameras + the usb3 for the headset, is a hard sell on a lot of systems. Most people who are successfully running 3+ camera roomscale deployments have at least one if not two extra usb3 cards in their machine.
They just made a big mistake going with camera tracking, the lighthouse solution just seems much more scalable.
I actually think the opposite. Camera based tracking is the future and the Lighthouse stuff whilst good right now is going to something of a dead end. In the future we're going to be using inside-out tracked headsets which will be highly reliant on camera tech. Even more so for a workable general use AR glasses solution. So perhaps more fiddly to setup now hurting consumer adoption but better in the long term?
You've got room scale setup with 3 cameras? Note that there were huge problems with the software a couple of releases ago that were recently resolved. Tracking is really smooth and solid right now for me personally on Oculus.
I am certainly biased, despite having huge issues with Oculus. My experience is Vive demos and second hand.
Setup was just placing cameras on a desk. I don't need external headphones. Store is curated, which is good and bad. I like trusting games won't give me nausea, or turn off people to VR. In my experience all it takes is one experience for some people to continue repeating "VR causes nausea" for literally 1+ year. My boss is this person, and it's hard to get him to try rift again.
Touch, and seeing my fingers closely mirrored in VR, I find extremely polished and wonderful. Grabbing the first object in VR made me laugh in excitement, first time I did that since seeing Tuscany in CV1.
Not the OP either but I use both extensively at work and haven't paid my own money so subject to less bias in that sense. I've also had a fair run at everything from Cardboard to the Hololens over the last couple of years.
Once setup I find the tracking similar. The main advantage of the Vive is the ability to track a larger space. Outside of arcades this is a bit of a non-issue currently as most users don't have that much space. A lot of users also don't tend to walk around that much or at least more tentatively due to the tether.
The Touch controllers are much better ergonomically and offer more input options. But they are also less non-gamer friendly. The Vive wand suffers from being enormous with badly placed buttons.
Headset wise the Rift is a clear winner right now. It's lighter, has a much better harness and the integrated headphones remove a lot of the faff factor putting it on. Vive is releasing kits that address some of this later in the year.
Store wise Oculus does a better job of surfacing products that will meet consumer expectations. Mostly because there are less hobby projects clogging it up and the exclusive content so far has been good. Then you can still head over to Steam, itch and others to explore more questionable variety.
Oculus certainly has some room scale. I use it fine in my 12x12 room. It's otherwise better than the Vive in a lot of ways. Asw, atw, screen door, audio, comfort, clarity across the fov, controllers, apps. The bigger room scale is about the only thing the Vive does better.
Oculus needs 3 tracking devices for room scale, and is still smaller and buggier. Games are required to be designed for 180 degrees instead of 360 like the vive.
Vive is also getting wireless headset support this quarter (TPcast).
Oculus poured far too much money into paying off developers for exclusive titles than trying to compete on technology, and as far as I can tell are falling further behind.
I've read that the wireless options are coming tonRift as well. Why wouldn't they? Oculus just doesn't talk as much publicly. 360 tracking works for me with three sensors. The Rift is less expensive than Vive now too.
It seems like you are cherry picking your facts, which indicates you have technology religion. So no point discussing with you.
I have both....you cherry picked yours too. There is a large difference in experience, and I'm just endlessly annoyed Rift hasn't delivered on their promises, and buy exclusives vs develop tech. I'd say I'm a fair weather fan of either tbh.
I'm sure I came across as more argumentative than I meant to be.
