I own both the Vive and the Rift and I have no idea where these reviewers are coming up with this. The Rift absolutely needs to have the 3 camera setup in order to work well and, even then, it's still not as good as a 2 lighthouse Vive setup. On top of that, the timed exclusives are annoying to me because I can't compare the 2 systems against each other to really determine which provides the better VR experience.

I might be in the minority, but the Valve Lab is still my favorite VR experience and Arizona Sunshine is quickly running up there for me. I don't like the locomotion AS uses, but the game is as close to the real-deal for VR as I've experienced so far.

I agree Valve Lab is my favorite experience, but it's available natively on Oculus Rift as well through SteamVR. And I have no issues with the 2-camera setup for a medium-sized play area. At room-scale, Oculus already recommends 3 and is not trying to claim that 2 camera setup is ideal.

I don't own a Vive but I've spent a good amount of time using my friend's and the display of the Rift is superior (and even he agrees). The Vive used to be a better overall package because of wands, but Touch is better (and battery life is FANTASTIC).

Touch is the best part of the Rift, one hundred percent (the controllers are better than the Vive ones for sure)--but in practice I found that dealing with its cameras was a bear to the point that, while both the demo units I set up have gone back, I'm probably buying a Vive when I get into VR work. The Rift requires some long USB runs unless you've got an office/game room with a lot of space to burn, whereas you can be a lot more flexible with spacing with the Vive because the lighthouses are passive and the brains of the device are on the headset and the controllers. I have a studio space that is built on inadvisably long USB runs, but that's with gear that seems a lot friendlier to it; the third camera for the Rift was a real problem in terms of USB spacing and it wasn't the sort of thing I'd want to leave set up in any room I'd have any other people in.

I don't personally agree that the Rift display is superior, but I think that's a reasonable-people-can-differ thing.

While I agree that the Oculus display is better, the pick up and go experience of the Rift is still better to me. Setting up the 3 cameras on the Rift and just getting everything to work well was a pain the butt. The Vive walked me through setting up the base stations and tracking the room and it was kind of fun to do it so it breezed by.

> "The optional dual-sensor, 360° setup works well for these games also, just with a smaller tracked area. Officially Oculus doesn't yet support 360° and room-scale configurations beyond "experimental support," but we recommend spending the extra $79 on that third sensor for the full experience."

From what I've heard it doesn't really work that well, even with a third camera, with intermittant tracking issues, and with much less space than the Vive.

Your quotes are either misleading or shill.

> Your quotes are either misleading or shill.

Or what you've heard is from Valve fanboys and these quotes are true. What I've heard suggests that it's this way, so .. we're stuck.

Of the articles above, only Tomshardware even tested roomscale.

I don't think it's that binary. The quotes are misleading because no one actually tested room-scale VR with the Rift except for Tom's and, of those that did, they tested it with the 3 camera setup that's not the standard config for it.

I would say that Oculus taking 6 months to catch up to Vive, to only gain parity, to not significantly leap frog, and then only assuming you stand just so, puts them behind in the overall race. They've not demonstrated anything to show they have upped their R&D cadence. I expect we will have a Vive refresh in another 6 months and the Rift will once again be behind.