Oculus has announced Rift S, the headset’s fabled hardware refresh that brings with it a modest spec bump and a few other changes to the original Rift that the company hopes will appeal to new entrants in PC VR gaming. With the standalone headset Oculus Quest and Rift S both selling for the same $400 price tag and coming at some point this Spring, you might want to know what sets the two apart.

You’ll find the specs below, but if you haven’t really thought about either of the headset before, you may want to read the next few paragraphs before skipping on to compare hard numbers like screen resolutions and refresh rates.

To PC, or Not to PC?

Just like its 2016-era namesake, you’ll need a capable gaming PC to run Rift S. Although the headset features a modest bump in resolution, its LCD display has been clocked to 80Hz so that recommended specs are essentially unchanged between the new Rift S and the old Rift. That means a rig with an Nvidia GTX 1060 or AMD Radeon RX 480 or greater will be able to play most everything you can throw at it on Rift S. There’s a little more to it than that though, so here’s a handy guide on how to check if your computer is ready for VR first.

Unlike the PC-dependent Rift S, Oculus Quest is more like a console in the sense that you don’t need anything else besides the headset and supplied controllers—no computer required. This has a lot of benefits if you don’t already own a VR-capable PC, not to mention that Quest is easily portable.

SEE ALSO
Google Prepares Support for XR Headsets on Play Store, Marking The Next Chapter in XR Competition

Different App Library

Because Quest uses a mobile processor that’s much less powerful than the PC-powered Rift S, the two headsets don’t share the same game library. Rift S is compatible with everything in the original Rift catalog, but Quest has its own separate app library (also separate from Oculus Go). While some titles will be available on both Rift S and Quest (and can optionally support cross-buy if developers wish), don’t expect to play any old Rift-compatible game on Quest.

Shared Features

Thanks to Oculus ‘Insight’, a technology that uses the headsets’ outward-facing cameras for room tracking, users won’t need external sensors for either Rift S or Quest, both of which have full six degrees of freedom (6DOF) head and controller tracking.

That’s not all. The new Touch controllers are identical between Rift S and Quest, something developers ought to love since they can target a single controller scheme and produce a game for Rift, Rift S and Quest.

Touch controllers, Image courtesy Oculus

Side note: Both Rift S and Quest feature integrated open-ear audio. For noisier environments or just better auditory immersion, you should probably use a pair of external headphones.

Many of the games you’ll find on Quest will make it to Rift too, as Oculus has pledged to not only support cross-platform launch of Quest content to Rift, but also ‘cross-buy’ of said content, meaning you can buy a game once and be able to play it on either your Rift (S) or Quest if you happen to own both. It’s true some developers will decide to create Quest exclusives, or effectively disable cross-purchasing by pricing each version differently, although it seems at very least Oculus software partners and its first-party studio will be making sure both Rift and Quest get a measure of equal content moving forward.

SEE ALSO
'Hitman 3 VR: Reloaded' Gets First Big Patch Today Following Critical Misfire

That’s not to say Quest will be able to play all Rift games though; far from it. Developers have to specially port their PC VR game to play nice with Quest’s 72Hz display and modest Snapdragon 835 mobile chipset. For comparison, that’s the same chip you’ll find in the Samsung Galaxy S8 line from 2017. On the other hand, the Rift S has the horsepower of a whole gaming PC behind it, and can achieve richer graphics and more complex games because of it.

Oculus Rift S – Specs

Oculus Rift S, Image courtesy Oculus
  • Pricing: $400
  • Availability: Spring 2019
  • Weight: A little more than Rift
  • Audio: Integrated open-ear, 3.5mm audio jack for external audio
  • Display:
    • Resolution: 1,280 × 1,440 per-eye (2,560 × 1,440 total)
    • Type: Single fast-switch LCD
    • Refresh Rate: 80Hz
    • Field of View: ‘Slightly larger than Rift’
    • IPD Adjustment: Software only
  • Tracking:
    • Type: ‘Insight’ inside-out (no external sensors) – five cameras
    • Capabilities: Supports 6 degrees of freedom head and controller tracking
    • Recommended Environments: It should work in almost any lit indoor environment.
    • Recommended Playspace: Oculus Rift S works with your environment, so you can play standing or sitting, in spaces big or small.
  • Tether:
    • Length: 5 meter
    • Connections: DisplayPort 1.2 & USB
  • Passthrough:
    • Passthrough+: Low latency stereo-correct passthrough video
    • Guardian: Boundaries traced from inside headset using passthrough
  • Recommended PC Specs: Same as Rift except need DisplayPort 1.2 or later and just one USB 3.0 port instead of three

Oculus Quest – Specs

Oculus Quest, Image courtesy Oculus
  • Pricing: $400
  • Availability: Spring 2019
  • Weight: ~100g more than Rift (470g)
  • Audio: Integrated open-ear, two 3.5mm audio jacks for external audio
  • Display:
    • Resolution: 1,440 × 1,600 per-eye (2,880 × 1,600 total)
    • Type: Dual OLED
    • Refresh Rate: 72Hz
    • Field of View: ~100 degrees (unconfirmed speculation)
    • IPD Adjustment: Hardware adjustable
  • Tracking:
    • Type: ‘Insight’ inside-out (no external sensors) – four cameras
    • Capabilities: Supports 6 degrees of freedom head and controller tracking
    • Recommended Environments: It should work in almost any lit indoor environment.
    • Recommended Playspace: Oculus Quest works with your environment, so you can play standing or sitting, in spaces big or small.
  • Compute:
    • No tether: On-board Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 and active cooling
    • Battery: 2–2.5 hours battery life
  • Passthrough:
Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • HomeAudio

    I will concider buying Oculus Quest as a complementary device to my CV1. But Rift S is not a good replacement of my CV1 (not with this specification).

    • Mike Hearn

      I’m wondering the same thing. My only grip with the CV1 is the SDE, but I do wonder if the 40% increase in pixels in the S is really going to be that world changing. Am I thinking right? Or is it really going to be that big of a change/worth it?

      I am going to buy a Quest regardless I think.

      • Michael Kim

        Try Oculus Go then you know how better the screen looks as far as SDE, sharpness and sweet spot. I have both headsets and

        I really enjoy watching movies with GO but not with Rift at all. Some said it looks better than Vive Pro. But the down side is you don’t get the pitch black of OLED..

  • kontis

    But Facebook LOVES PC VR… Right?

    No worries, though, you can always just buy Quest and enjoy superior deep blacks and IPD adjustment also without this pesky open PC platform full of viruses like Steam.

    • HybridEnergy

      For 2 hours at 72hz lol

      • Amni3D

        When the battery decays and charge capacity goes down, it’ll be even worse. Just my thoughts.

        • HybridEnergy

          Yea, no kidding. I can’t wait for this thing to release already so the dream becomes a reality. lol

        • Chris Campbell

          Haha, then you’ll have to plug in, right? So it will become a Rift S over time, with better blacks, but shittier framerate – are we all confused yet?

    • gacl

      Oculus probably loves VR more than the “PC” platform. They do love PC enough to support it, and they love their hobbyist fan base, but ultimately, a lot of people don’t really want a traditional PC, and Oculus wants to cater to that.

      • The Mogget

        The Rift S is clearly a minimum effort shout-out to the enthusiasts. The future of VR is standalone on mobile chips. It is the PC-ness of VR that has held it back.

        • sfmike

          Well the minimum effort should not have involved a crappy LCD one panel screen. Cost cutting at it’s worst.

        • HybridEnergy

          The future of VR. 1 1/2 hour battery life and indie games like angry birds and more angry birds. Woohoo. My bad, forgot an extremely under sampled blurry 72 fps version of Robo Recall.

          • The Mogget

            Depressing, isn’t it? You realize that this future is already here for PCs. The most played PC game is…. Solitaire. http://m.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/100-million-people-now-play-solitaire-on-windows/article/473774

          • HybridEnergy

            Grasping for straws dude , I remember you guys from the 90s going on about how PC is dying. Some say 2 decades later they are still screaming that. The future of VR, being stuck to the oculus platform for 1 hour of game play before your battery takes a shit. Nice.

          • The Mogget

            The PC is dying in terms of dominance. Sure, there are still people out there selling and buying flip phones, so flip phones must still be the majority of the market, right?
            Not that long ago, the vast majority of time spent and devices online was PCs. Now it isn’t anymore. The single biggest seller in VR, last year, was not a PC unit. It was a console unit – PSVR. This year the single greatest seller will be a stand-alone unit, the Quest. The PC going to top the charts anytime soon? I doubt it.

          • HybridEnergy

            That’s because you define dominance as mainstream high volume seller as dominance. The PC isn’t dying in terms of those factors, it’s been dead since the beginning heh. PC’s dominance is quality, functionality, and being ahead of it’s time no mater the cost but it’s always been a lower percent of the market sales. It’s never “topped” the charts to begin with but that’s not what makes something good or better. What’s the point of PSVR out selling PCVR HMDS, who didn’t predict that when the PS4 out sells PC on a unit bases with or with out VR. It’s such old mentality I’m glad I brought up the anology to the 90’s complainers, it’s the same shit. PC is dying, it’s been dying forever lol

          • The Mogget

            Yes…. and its dominance in quality is no longer essential for most VR. There will always be a few consumers and applications that need a PC, but more and more will be available in standalone. No longer do you always need a top gaming PC for most VR. PC will always have a leg up on graphics, but today’s Quest can do what yesterdays Rift could. At what point do even ‘serious’ gamers decide that mobile is good enough and the PC part is not worth the hassle?

          • HybridEnergy

            “Yes…. and its dominance in quality is no longer essential for most VR. ” Oh yes it is lol, check out the new trailer of Quest games . Robo Recall looks like a turd bucket. As screens improve (they will not stop, we will have 8k 4k per eye by the end of 2020) the power of the PC will be more than ever essential. It’s now also pretty obvious the Quest can’t do what the Rift can on a decent vid card.
            I just want to note I like the Quest, I may get one. I just think it’s going to be a parallel platform and not one that will replace PCVR.

          • The Mogget

            I don’t know which trailer you are referring to. A link would be nice.

            You have made my point though. Games like Robo Recall will be on the Quest and will be tons of fun even if they look a ‘turd bucket’. No one has suggested that the Quest can render as good as a proper gaming rig. I am suggesting that this difference won’t matter and won’t stop developers or customers, just as it didn’t stop people who switched from the higher rendering flat screens to VR at low res the first time.

            Here is a side by side and article for Dead and Buried. Does the Rift version look better? Of course. Are players going to care? Is the Quest version going to be less fun? Nope.
            https://uploadvr.com/oc5-heres-dead-and-buried-running-side-by-side-on-rift-and-quest/amp/

        • Gonzax

          That’s a very distant future unless you don’t give a damn about quality.

        • gacl

          Sure. Also, I’d bet on VR + server-side game streaming like Google Stadia. If that can deliver 4k resolution, 60+ fps, with super high quality, without the need to buy/setup/maintain a Windows Gaming PC, that’s awesome. Regular consumers really don’t want the hassle of the gaming PC. And even lots of enthusiasts like myself, I buy a $3k+ MacBook Pros for work + hobbies, I don’t want a Windows PC just for certain games.

          • The Mogget

            That will be awesome when it happens. In the meantime, Quest is the best PC-free option I have.

  • Joe Bazaar

    Does the passthrough on Quest mean AR games? Why doesn’t Quest have an optional virtual link port so you could play normal oculus games if you wanted?

    • jameshvr

      i can only speak about my experience with the Vive Focus, but in that case pass through is very limited and not ready for anything near AR because of hardware limitations. I would assume that as a standalone headset the Quest is also quite optimized in what it does, so theres no room for the hardware to do more than its meant to do. Lack of marketing material in terms of AR seems to confirm this.

  • Joe Bazaar

    The 855 has twice the power as that chip and can do 5G ..Quest could have been something worth getting.

    • TJ Studio

      But that’ll make the headset more expensive.

    • yes. At $600 instead of $400.

  • tvguy

    I’m considering an Oculus Quest for on the go VR. I am disappointed, however, that it’s only got the 835 processor and not the best 855. Seems like a really poor design choice. Hopefully the Quest will be able to run its games without a lot of jitter and lag. i’m sure they’ve tested for this but still, it seems like all of the launch titles are going to push the processor to its absolute limit.

    • gacl

      For games like Beat Saber, the Quest needs to render that at high frame rate and high res and have great tracking. If the Quest can hit that well, that’s all it needs to do. The higher end GPU features you see in high level gaming console or PC aren’t actually that important for this type of game.

      The better chipsets will come in the next hardware revision and give us something to look forward to.

      • The Mogget

        The BeatSaber team spoke very highly of the Quest at those very things just yesterday. You don’t need ‘better chipsets and hardware.’ The Quest can do it now.

        • Rosko

          Why would they not speak highly of it Quest sales will bring them money.

          • The Mogget

            That is possible, but sounds a bit conspiracy theory. Beat Saber is on like every VR platform, and they make money off Playstation VR as much as Quest. I think Rift fanbois just can’t accept that the Quest could do a great job. When mine arrives, I will find out.

        • Jean Laplage

          To do a game with almost no graphics, yeah, you don’t need a good hardware.

          • The Mogget

            Exactly. Good thing graphics are not what makes games fun.

  • blue5peed

    Bit awkward when the quest has so many better specs than the Rift S. It really would have been better if the Rift S was a tethered quest.

    • The Mogget

      It really would have been better if people quit asking for a Rift S at all. Standalone is the future, and the sooner we get with the program the sooner Oculus can sell 1 product with a single library again.

      • Mike Hearn

        When I can play my racing sims, using my wheels and pedals, I’m on board with that thought.

        • madelyn

          Current analysis demonstrates that on average 75% individuals are engaged into web browsing jobs. Internet world-wide is simply becoming bigger and better and providing lots of work at home opportunities. Home based on-line jobs are becoming poplar and changing individual’s everyday lives. Why it is really preferred? This is because it lets you work from anywhere and anytime. You will enjoy much more time to allocate with your loved ones and can plan out trips for holidays. Persons are making pleasant revenue of $37000 in one week by utilizing the efficient and smart ways. Doing right work in a right path will always lead us towards success. You will start to get paid from the first day after you browse through our website. >>>>> RESPOND BY TODAY

        • The Mogget

          I hear you. Racing sims on Quest at least at first is unlikely, and that is something I really am interested in.

      • Ah what a joke, I have absolutely no interest in a built in computer that can’t play 90% of games. I already have one that can. Your opinion is crud.

        • MosBen

          Why is the value of his opinion tied at all to what you, personally, want?

          • Because his cruddy opinion was literally “no one wants this”……..

        • The Mogget

          90% of games? Now that number is the real joke. Maybe 90% of the games you play.

      • brubble

        I agree with you but whats preventing a hybrid wireless/tethered hmd? Wireless is great but not all games require jumping around and current battery life is shoddy at best, as well the option of an extra boost while tethered to a decent PC would be a win overall.

        • The Mogget

          A hybrid is a good idea. One store, one customer base, one system for developers.

          I just think all the VR enthusiasts who have lived and died by their graphics cards don’t realize how far mobile processing has come.

          They also don’t realize how much of that processing is spent on details. For example, BeatSaber was optimized for Quest by removing a simple fog effect that was really resource hungry. I bet most people who play both won’t even notice that the fog is gone.

          Games designed for the hardware is normal for the console market, and many really pretty games like the Climb will still look great on the Quest.

          In the real world, I think most players would never plug in the hybrid unit unless the game demanded it. The top specs fps and polygons crowd will be the minority.

          • brubble

            Wishful thinking on my part. I have no clue about whats feasible with this kind of tech.

          • Get Schwifty!

            Mobile processing is a joke compared to even a 1060…. just saying, let’s keep things in perspective, and the CPU’s dont even come close…. consoles have their place, but let’s keep it real here.

            I will agree that for VR to thrive, we have to bring in the non-PC owner, who’s gets befuddled at even setting up the Playstation or phone… but in the long run a PC device is still and will continue to be for another decade or more the superior experience.

          • The Mogget

            It has nothing to with befuddling. PC VR is expensive and inconvenient even to those who know it perfectly. It needs to be wireless to be properly immersive. There is more to the experience than looks.

            There are plenty of us with the means and the knowhow to get the most out of PC powered VR who will prefer the Quest.

      • HybridEnergy

        They are so butt hurt by STEAM aren’t they? lmao . People aren’t afraid of the PC the way you make it seem, there are millions of Steam users. The issue is a lack of AAA content, but you need good hardware for that and as good as mobile will continue to the get the hardware for PC will always be ahead. Every tech engineer knows, heat is the issue and large hardware can dissipate it.

        • MosBen

          Of course PCs will always be more powerful, but a cutting edge gaming PC will also always be expensive, and an investment that most people simply don’t want to make. It’s true that developers are still working out how to create compelling VR content, but that’s all the more reason to focus less money and time on increasing graphical fidelity and more on producing less expensive experiences that try to find compelling ways to present VR content. This also has the side benefit of allowing for VR experiences on less powerful, and less expensive, hardware.

          • HybridEnergy

            That’s how you get those “VR is DEAD cause my quirky indie game made by me and my dog in my basement didn’t sell” articles I believe.

          • Hivemind9000

            But isn’t that essentially what the Quest is designed to address? And it does it with a higher resolution than the S. So tell me again why the graphical fidelity can’t be better when a mobile processor and gpu can handle it?

          • resolution and graphical fidelity is two different things pc runs at a higher fidelity which require more power to do if u bump up the res and try to keep the same fidelity u’ll need a stronger pc. oculus made the choice they made to keep the fidelity high which is y it’s a 80hz panel (btw oculus has said they open to letting people overclock it back up to 90hz. the fidelity on the quest will be lower they bump up the res of the screen to make up for that

          • Hivemind9000

            Well, not exactly but I understand the point you’re trying to make. PCs don’t necessarily run at a higher fidelity – they can use supersampling up to a point to get a better image (but in theory so could the Quest if it had enough grunt) and often the games they run have higher rendering demands. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making in context to MosBen’s post – in that the Quest already fulfills the role of the lower fidelity, less expensive VR experiences. Seems like Oculus are bunching their headsets down at the shallow end of the pool.

        • The Mogget

          I am one of those Steam users. I have thousands of hours on Steam, mostly on strategy games.

          Triple A games suck. All style. They do the same old shtick but with more levels and more items and more graphics every year. I play console and indie games, where the gameplay comes first.

          • HybridEnergy

            AAA refers more to the budget and time spent developing the game. It’s not a specific genre of game the way you make it seem. A strategy game could be a AAA game.

          • The Mogget

            Triple A games are of a variety of genres, but the disease is the same. Take a well-established game type and throw a bunch of sparklies at it. “Wow, that water rendering is super detailed…is this what takes a supercomputer to run? Wow, that is some high-dollar voice acting and music…. But this game is super boring and unoriginal. Wow, this world is super huge…. which is why slogging across it doing side quest chores takes even more of my hours.’

            I don’t care if it is strategy, mmorpg, or a shooter. When the AAA crowd moves in the indies have been there and done that long ago.

          • HybridEnergy

            You clearly avoid specifying which games you are talking about, but as I said. It’s not the gfx that define a AAA game. A lot of high budget games have been with out gfx as a priority. A great game should have it all though, good visuals and gameplay, the tired old argument gameplay vs graphics isn’t necessary anymore as all games look pretty great today. VR is different, when I talk about PC having power over others which was the topic the point is VR , unlike flat games, requires high refresh rates and in general far more computing power. The Quest will be a limitation to devs bringing their imagined world to life, at the hopeful benefit of a larger audience…nothing we haven’t seen before.

          • The Mogget

            The reason I talk about AAA and graphics in the same breath is because others say ‘serious gaming’ or ‘AAA’ is something the Quest cannot do.

            Games that are ‘triple A’ in gameplay or music or design or story or anything except graphics will work as good on the Quest as the Rift or Rift S.

            It is you who must specify what you think the Quest will never be able to do. I think it can handle any rift game, albeit some with slightly reduced graphics. The peripheral bits like steering wheels will show up eventually. If a game doesn’t come to the Quest it will be a developer choice.

      • Gonzax

        That day is still very far. I don’t want to compromise quality for standalone, the cable doesn’t bother me one bit. Lack of resolution, battery life and other things bothers me a lot.

        • HybridEnergy

          As far as the tether goes, seeing how good my wireless adapter with the 60ghz bandwidth works eventually the PC headsets all will drop the cable anyway soon.

        • Get Schwifty!

          He’s a consoler, and many will remain just that. They grew up using pads, phones and consoles, to them a PC is like this overly complicated expensive thing and they think, well,herp derp, I can do all the same things on my el cheapo devices, so what if it looks like ass?

      • Chris Campbell

        When you figure out how to shrink the power of a gaming pc into something standalone, we will be right there in line ready to give you our money. Until then, accept reality that powerful experiences need to be backed by powerful hardware and stop posting nonsense.

        • The Mogget

          “Powerful experiences”… Like what?

          • Bruce

            Elite Dangerous, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars 2, Seeking Dawn, The Forest, Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice, Dirt Rally. Fallout 4, Skyrim. Lone Echo. Subnautica, Warthunder, DCS. Orbus, Megaton Rainfall, Firewall Zero Hour, Onward. I would consider these as powerful experiences that we’re perhaps not likely to see on running on Oculus Quest. It remains to be seen though!

          • The Mogget

            I don’t just hope, I expect that Dirt Rally will come to Quest with reduced graphics. It would be sweet if it could be made to work with existing peripherals, but Quest might need its own.

          • The Mogget
    • daveinpublic

      They probably wanted to combat the market share WMR is taking, and they couldn’t do that without matching the comfort of WMR and price of WMR. Over time, Rift S can plummet in pricing, but the Quest probably can’t. The Rift S may be priced at $399 initially to keep it from competing with the Quest’s launch price and to get the early adopter money, but Rift S Black Friday sales would probably make your momma blush. :)

      • MosBen

        I’d expect that this holiday season the Rift S will stay at $400, or maybe $350 at most, but they’ll have a really serious pack-in deal that includes a ton of free games. Then next year they’ll drop it to $300.

      • Bruce

        Or just get rid of a back order of oculus go displays.

  • 144Hz

    This is ridiculous.

    • eckehard

      I think so-too – for what a new wired Rift ??

    • The Mogget

      People wanting a tethered headset in 2019 is ridiculous. Mobile has caught up. Enjoy your clunky prototype systems while they last.

      • HybridEnergy

        Caught up? where? show me? I have 8 hours of battery life on a wireless 3k Vive pro headsets playing Fallout 4 with 60 mods. Send me vid of your mobile doing that. Thanks.

        • Smokey_the_Bear

          Stop calling the Vive Pro 3k. When it comes to VR, you go off of one display (don’t combine them), that’s what companies do to try and trick consumers.

          • HybridEnergy

            Is that really that important? 3k I meant as in 2880×1600 (1440×1600 per eye) . Happy? lol

        • Gonzax

          Yeah, please show me a mobile phone that can do the same graphics as a 1080Ti that’s almost as big as the Quest. For Christ’s sake, the fans alone are bigger than any mobile phone. People saying mobile is just as good as pc is laughable, to say the least.

          • HybridEnergy

            Exactly, and I like the Quest. I think it’s a great start for a future. I just think this guy is getting ahead of himself. lol

        • The Mogget

          8 hours of battery life on a brain dead screen in a box?

          The Quest can get a couple hours battery life in a tent in the middle of nowhere. How many hours of battery life does your gaming rig get? Zero.

          That’s like saying an electric car gets 500 miles of range… But only because its sitting on a trailer being pulled by a gas truck.

          • HybridEnergy

            Well fuck, if you want to play in a tent in the middle of Siberia then you are right. My shit is owned and get a quest.

          • NoVaStarGalaxay Playz

            i dont understand why anyone would want to use VR anywhere other then in their house.

          • The Mogget

            I am not sure why anyone would ever want to use a telephone outside their house. Cordless phones will never catch on.

            Ever left your house? Been to a hotel room? How about a large gymnasium. The Quest team demoed a huge multiplayer team event that would be a technical nightmare with tethered units, even wireless ones.

      • Gonzax

        Good joke, that was funny!

      • Chris Campbell

        Haha, are you a pro troll? This is the second time you’ve decided physics and processing power don’t matter just in this one thread. You are a fool, and you’re a dick about it.

        • Get Schwifty!

          Yeah, I mean there are some good things with mobile, but you’d have to be smoking some serious crack to think even the best mobile processors are anything like a good PC experience….

  • Rosko

    Complete fail by Oculus imo i’m think i’m more ready than ever to try windows or vive. If it had been the same as quest i would have got one in a second.

    • The Mogget

      Why don’t you just get the Quest? What’s wrong with it?

      • Rosko

        What is wrong with the Quest? nothing if you want to play casual phone games but that is not my thing at all. Only criticism of the quest is why not give it the better tracking of the Rift-S? Maybe processing power was the issue. Quest is decent, maybe get one in sales but not as a replacement of Rift obviously.

        • Scott

          Lmao you do know that a bunch of rift games are going to the quest and have the graphical superiority beyond typical phone games. The 835 will have theoretically more power than it would in a Samsung s8 as it doesn’t have to run all phone process at the same time as the game itself. Roborecall is a game that I wouldn’t expect to be played on the quest but will be due to optimization. While it won’t have as much graphic fidelity, it is a lot more than you think especially if you’re calling it “casual mobile games”. Go look up the graphical comparison of quest and rift. It’s surprisingly not bad at all.

          • Rosko

            You think maybe that many of us who buy into high end PCs are maybe doing so for a reason? I use this to play GPU & CPU intensive games at the high settings that a quest couldn’t possible run. Quest is absolutely aimed at the casual market as as said by Oculus themselves & the quest is ‘Mobile’. I have also seen some quest games & although it’s not the same as actually seeing them in 3d much lower polygons & textures plus you would also be running at native pixel density & i alway run at at least 1.8. No chance quest will be replacing my HMD I will either wait & see if Oculus plan a Rift 2 or will buy a different brand.

        • Chris Edwards

          Rift S and Quest have the same tracking.

          • Rosko

            Rift S has 5 tracking sensors with different placement for more coverage.

          • Chris Edwards

            Your correct, It has a camera on top of the headset where the Quest does not. Other than that the inside tracking is the same.

          • Rosko

            But it also has 2 positioned at the sides. So it has better tracking less blind spots.

        • q23main

          casual phone games

          You do know Beat Saber is on Quest? As is SUPERhot etc.
          Sure there will be graphical downgrades but this is well beyond phone games.

        • The Mogget

          The difference in cameras is interesting. It could be about costs, or about processing, or about supporting legacy rift games with behind-your-head-or-back movements for like reloading. Games designed for Quest will have you doing things in its view.

    • Oculus win on the software front. Oculus Home is polished and simple to use. WMR software feels like an Alpha test version. Pimax sales probably took a big jump today as an device to upgrade too.

      • Rosko

        Agree on that but then i look at the games i’m putting the hours into most of them are steam only. I will probably have to keep the Rift 7 have the high spec HMD for the steam games. Shame as i wanted to pass on my rift to a family member.

  • Tesla

    They could have made just Quest, but with VirtualLink extra connector, for those who would love to connect it to PC for full power VR. Mobile when on the go, PC connected when cable is used or wireless. Rift S is a massive fail.

    • Nope because no way in hell would I buy something with a built in computer. I have no need for that and I would never pay for it. As someone entering the market soon, and knows others who are, I guarantee you they would screw themselves out of a lot of sales by doing that. No idea why you would think it a good idea to sell people another processor when 90% of people already have a phone more powerful than what they’re putting in this thing, that’s completely ignoring that people who are into VR are gonna get a pc that can actually handle games not a toy processor.

      • Sergey Solo

        Nope because no way in hell would I buy something with a built in computer. I have no need for that and I would never pay for it.

        Makes sense as long as they make the price of a tethered headset below of an untethered. But with current pricing, and considering the fact that making the Quest tethered-when-needed is more of a software issue than hardware, the Rift S does seem ridiculous.

        • Yeah I agree, the Rift S is pretty cruddy and ridiculous when compared directly to the Quest. Don’t get it at all.

      • Chris Campbell

        I dunno, if I thought I might use it standalone (for watching movies? other low-power stuff), I’d be willing to pay something for the onboard CPU. Would I pay $100? Probably not, but if PC-only version was 350 and the PC-and-standalone device (with all the same specs for both) was 400 – I’d do it.

        • NoVaStarGalaxay Playz

          I kinda feel like Rift S will still be better because of the much larger library and I dont see anyone wanting to use VR outside of their home

      • Feny

        Reading this 2 months later: Major fuckin’ oof.

      • Jeff Chapman

        The Quest is miles better than a phone-in-an-HDM solution (like the Gear VR). You don’t get 6DOF with your smartphone.

  • The Mogget

    It’s simple, kids. Standalone is the future of VR, and Oculus knows it. The Rift S is a shout out to the polygons and FPS crowd to keep them happy, but Oculus is aiming at the mass market. The Quest is going to sell over a million units in its first year, and so it is now the main Oculus market and user base.

    The goal here is to wean you off the PC by doing this – “Oh look, the mobile one is better than the PC one, I guess we should make them with the same stuff now. Buy a $1200 PC if you like, it’s your money.”

    I predict the next device generation will be the exact same unit with a tether option, and the one after that will only be standalone.

    • MosBen

      I don’t think that that’s likely. I think that the point of the S is to add another year before they release a Rift 2. Oculus likely doesn’t want to put out another product that requires a $1,000+ PC just to use it, as was the case with the CV1. The next generation HMD will have a significant bump in specs, but not so significant that the minimum specs require an RTS 2080. Putting out the Rift S allows for another year or two for developers to continue working on developing the language of VR game design and to build a larger community of users before trying to launch something totally new.

      • The Mogget

        The Rift S is clearly not the ‘next big thing’. Its strong similarity with the Quest makes me think at some point we will get one combined product.

        • MosBen

          I’m not sure about that. I have a suspicion that Oculus is going to settle into a product line of a low end mobile unit (Go) and a higher end mobile unit (Quest), and a lower end tethered model (Rift S) and a higher end one (Half Dome or whatever).

          • The Mogget

            That is what it’s short term strategy is. I suppose the sales numbers of each will tell us what comes next. There is probably room in this growing market for more options, but I bet standalone wins the lionshare of sales.

    • brubble

      …with 20 minutes playtime on the battery.

      • Chris Edwards

        Buy a battery pack !

        • brubble

          so 40 min? :)

          • Chris Edwards

            No, a $30 battery pack will give you 8 hours.

          • brubble

            5 minutes.

      • The Mogget

        Source, please?

        • brubble

          Jesus, do I REALLY have to stick a “/s” on this for you? smh

          • The Mogget

            Do you really have to whine about it? Do, or do not. There is no whining.

          • brubble

            Powerful you have become, whining I sense in you.

    • Nate, is that you?

      • The Mogget

        Who? No.

  • GigaSora

    So the Rift s is just a worse version of the Rift? I’m confused.

    • MosBen

      Not worse. The screen is better, there’s less setup hassle. It has pass through video. It’s not a true next generation HMD, but it’s a pretty reasonable upgrade over the CV1.

      • brubble

        Really? ….with greyer blacks, unwillingness to disclose FOV which speaks volumes, in other words smaller, crappier headband, 80hz, and no physical ipd…for higher cost. This in your opinion is a reasonable “upgrade”? Sure the screen and lenses and tracking is/might be a slight upgrade when comparing it to cv1 but the cons outweigh the pros on this one.

        IMO this is a last minute, slap it together and kick it out the door device.

        • MosBen

          The write-ups that I’ve seen haven’t indicated that the screen has greyer blacks, and specifically note that LCDs have improved and that the screen looked good during hands-on time. The write-up here also said that Ben couldn’t notice a difference due to refresh rate, though it was possible that someone specifically sensitive to that issue might. The headband is supposedly more comfortable and also is easier to adjust between different people, which is certainly nice when you’re passing it around. And it’s a “higher cost” compared to the $350 price that Oculus used to push out their remaining stock of the original Rift.

          And on the other hand, it gets inside out tracking, which will improve setup dramatically, pass through video, and a higher resolution screen which significantly reduces SDE.

          Is it a big upgrade? No. It’s a hardware refresh, not a new generation. But it’s also not worse overall. I likely won’t upgrade over my existing Rift, as I’ll be spending my money on the Quest, but if I was able to trade my CV1 for a Rift S I absolutely would.

          • brubble

            Good points, I’ll just have to wait and see after we get some hands on time.

        • Gonzax

          I think overall it will be better, I intend to buy it, probably after reading some reviews but I’d be surprised if the image was worse than the current Rift’s.

          It’s not a major upgrade, that is very clear but not worse either.

          • brubble

            There was a fellow with some hands on time and he claimed games with dark themes like space or horror were disappointing as the blacks were grey.

      • GigaSora

        1.4 times the resolution is marginally better. The screen is LCD, which sucks comparatively. The tracking is going to be worse. There are no over the ear headphones. The design is terrible. Nobody cares about passthrough video. There is less setup hassle, but it doesn’t outweigh all the other decrements. Its a lateral move, and I now accept it for what it is. I guess I never saw them directly say it was an upgrade, just kept hearing that from RoadToVR.

        • MosBen

          I mean, you say that it sucks, but the articles here on RTVR have talked about how historically LCDs have had some advantages over OLEDs in VR, as well as some drawbacks, but that LCDs have also improved in recent years and in hands-on use of the device the drawbacks didn’t seem very noticeable. So are you basing this on some other article that noticed some issues in their hands-on time, or are you just saying that the screen being LCDs sucks because you’ve been used to saying it for a long time?

          You don’t care about passthrough video. Don’t mistake that “nobody”. You don’t seem to think that easier setup is a big deal, but that’s not a universally held belief either.

          It’s not an upgrade, or at least not a generational one, and I don’t think RTVR has said otherwise. It’s a hardware refresh, which improves some aspects and addresses some things that new users might like, but it’s not a Rift 2. It’s primary job is to cost less for Oculus to manufacture, like basically all hardware refreshes.

          • GigaSora

            I’m saying LCDs suck because its my opinion after extended use with the Oculus Go LCD display and the general assumption that LCD technology can’t be THAT much better one year later.

            But, as I said, its a lateral move and I’m fine with that now. I would have just rathered they didn’t make it at all and focused on whats to come. There won’t be increased headset sales from this, so I don’t really see the point in upsetting the community. And if it costs less to make, it’s an interesting move to make it more expensive. Although I imagine it does cost less to make. Which would mean they believe its an upgrade, which is also interesting. Random train of thought.

          • MosBen

            I could see there being some increased sales from the S, but even if the sales just continue at the pace that they’ve been at for the CV1 it’s still a win for Oculus because the S almost certainly costs them significantly less to produce. So we can all pretend that nothing new has happened, while their VR business makes a bit more money, or they find themselves able to lower the price again in the future. And that’s just good for VR overall. As for why they made it more expensive, that’s only in comparison to the relatively recent price drop to $350, which seems pretty obviously to have been about clearing out stock of the CV1 to make room for the S.

            But I agree that I’m not personally super excited by the S, insofar as I probably won’t upgrade unless someone wants to buy my CV1 for enough to make the switch worthwhile, but instead I’ll probably just get the Quest and wait for the Rift 2, which will hopefully have a wider FOV, which is my most-wanted upgrade.

          • GigaSora

            I imagine it would also send the wrong message if the rift s was priced the same as the rift considering its positioned as an upgrade, which makes the clearing out of rift a good point. That way they can lower the price of the s without it looking bad for it.

      • GigaSora

        Sorry, and its 80hz and has no physical IPD adjustment.

  • Have Oculus tried to pull a fast one and re-brand a Lenovo? You can see the Lenovo logo on the side of the Rift S (go full screen)

    • MosBen

      I mean, they worked with Lenovo to design the S, so I don’t think that it’s a fast one.

  • $300 would have been a better price point for the Rift S, but I think we are seeing what happens when you have independent silos pushing products to the market. The extra cameras will allow better controller tracking than the MS WMR headsets, but I am wondering now that Oculus is also providing support for WMR, if we are not seeing more alignment to the WMR type headset with its LCD panels, no physical IPD adjustment, ratchet headband tightening system and of course inside/out tracking?

    Also, as many have wondered already here and elsewhere, why not just allow for the Quest to be designed with HDMI/USB 3 input. Seems like a much better strategy for a wider audience. Now we have to choose and with other companies ramping up with similar products including updated 2.0 of WMR headsets with better specs or others with unique phone link capability, this just seems like a quick stop gap to prevent further erosion to their desktop.

    • Dingus

      You think they should sell their new version of their product for cheaper than their old version?

      • Actually I think they should donate their old stock to schools, hospitals and museums instead continuing to sell a two year old headset at a price point only $50 less than their new ones. This is only going to confuse the consumer.

        • Chris Campbell

          If it makes you feel better, the Rift is now out of stock in all locations including Oculus.com – there won’t be confusion, at least not any additional confusion on top of who the fuck is the Rift S even supposed to be for and why would they buy it over the Quest?

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    What a disappointment!!! My nightmare just came true.

  • Nadim Alam

    Major Failure here that they took out the Rift CV1 audio. It was one of the best things about the headset, and made me update my vive with the same headstrap too. Complete fail, if i have to insert my own headphones or use there open one on the strap!!!

    The other major issue here, is that i want the Quest because of wireless, but then again i dont want to have to re-purchase every game again!! Most of my VR games are on Steam and they can be used with both Vive and CV1. Now Oculus is saying that i would have to purchase the same old games again if i want to play them :(

    • MosBen

      I mean, that was the risk of buying games on Steam, right? I buy most of my games on Steam as well, since I don’t want to lose access to my games if I end up going with a non-Oculus HMD in the next generation, but it seems like that hedging might bite me in the ass here.

  • MosBen

    If a game is available for cross-buy, will people be able to play multiplayer on two separate devices, or will that mess it up? To be more specific, I already own Star Trek Bridge Crew for the Rift, but I’d really like to be able to play multiplayer with my wife using the Quest.

    • MeowMix

      Good question

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    Smaller real life FOV than Oculus Rift according to VodooDE VR who tried it. Could they f… us Oculus PC VR enthusiasts more?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpDnu1wuNDo

    • Requiem

      Smaller because he was playing it with glasses on and adjusted the headset foreward /backward slide, when sliding it further away from your face the fov gets smaller.

    • Gonzax

      If that is true I’d be highly disappointed.

  • Bobenhaus

    The Battery life on the Quest isn’t very good. All you need to do is play a CPU intensive game or program and there goes your 2–2.5 hours battery life in matter of minutes. Then that annoying batter life is low warning will start to kick in :( I hope I’m wrong with the battery life .

    • Chris Edwards

      buy a $30 battery pack and get at least 6 hours of use

  • Tesla

    Oculus S means Shit. Oculus Shit version.

  • Pizzy

    Rift S needs a wireless solution. I may get a Quest to add to my VR headset collection of wireless Vives.

  • David Lord

    They should have called it the Oculus Rift B.

    B for Betrayal.

    • Hivemind9000

      B for Boring

  • That’sright

    Oculus thank you for making vr famous again with the oculus dev kit 1 however your technology is obsolete in 2019, most companies pushing way better resolution, eye tracking, and larger fov.

    • Matt Clark

      They’re just squeezing everything they can out of the marketing. They already have the technology we want. Beautiful screens with high fov, foveated rendering with eye tracking, verifocal lenses, you name it. We have seen the working prototypes. Product segmentation is the name of the game for them right now. Think of it like Usain Bolt jogging the finish of his preliminary qualification races. They’re also stacking up the dominoes. Remember, this is arguably the most powerful marketing company in the world. They’re just giving us a taste to keep us interested while they finish tying everything into one perfect package.

  • lujho

    Does anyone know if the S’s front cameras are colour? Because that could be kind of huge – it would allow for passthrough AR. Certainly not at launch but later down the line. Even if they’re greyscale, it does mean that finger tracking will also be possible down the line.

  • q23main

    Jeez.. I know FB main income will be from the Quest, thus it has to be better, but I’m still not happy with Rift S. If it had OLED panel(s) I could even ignore that resolution. Tracking with 5 cameras is such a good idea, I’m surprised that Reveb didin’t went in this direction.

  • grindathotte .

    They’re not daft. Any significant increase in resolution or FOV will require a more powerful system and that means a smaller market. Those hoping for an upgrade will have to look elsewhere, there’s a few more interesting offerings forthcoming.

  • Requiem

    I am new to VR, i have no prior VR experience, and the rift S sounds like a perfect step in VR for pc to me

    • Chris Campbell

      You’re not wrong, I think some of us just wanted our earlier investment(s) to be honored in some way. It seems like they took our money and made something that doesn’t appeal to their existing customers, aka the ones that got them here, and gives all the “winnings” to new people. Something like when DirecTV offers a sweet deal to new customers, but charges long-time customers full price – if that makes any sense. I’m happy you’re happy, and I hope our negativity doesn’t scare off people new to VR.

      • Requiem

        See it like this, at that price, and with also the Quest coming, more people who were previously not in VR will now maybe get into VR, thus helping to fund for a future actual oculus rift 2.0 :)

        if VR does not go main stream to more people then just the few who can afford a gaming pc in these days, then VR might not have a fast funden future.

        the more people that can step in now, also helps people like you for future tech :)

        i can understand that this Rift S feels like a patch on the rift, or a downgrade, though i would be cautious with the negativity of those that are JUST negative about the specs and have not tried the rift S, i follow some youtubers who do have the rift, and had some hands on with the rift S at GDC and they are not completely negative.

        and who knows, if sales go well for both Rift s and quest, 2020 might bring the next gen rift 2.0 :)

        So no negativity does not scare me off, i can fully understand it, but i would suggest those rift owners who are negative to at least try it hands on and then come back with feedback :)

  • Wayne Mabrey

    Everyone got upset it wasn’t $250 when cv1 was released… they are trying to keep the price low and required PC specs low for adoption. Now it they would have made the quest tethered with virtuallink. That would have made it worth upgrading. I’m happy they ditched the cameras. If they would have pur better screens in rift s and charged 599 like hp reverb then people would have bitched about the price being too high. Ahhh…. we PC people are hard to please.

  • Marcus

    Beauty and the Beast

  • Jose Ferrer

    One thing I really don´t understand:

    Rift S has lower resolution than Quest
    Rift S has LCD panel versus OLED in Quest
    Rift S has no mechanical IPD adjust
    Rift S has no battery (no need)
    Rift S has no 835 Snapdragon Chip (is connected to PC)
    Rift S has same lenses that Quest
    Rift S has same controllers that Quest

    So, why they have the same price?

    Is the 5 meter cable cost equal to better panels+IPDadjust+battery+Snapdragon.

    WHAT AN EXPENSIVE CABLE!

    • The Mogget

      Because people who are willing to buy a gaming rig to play the same games like to be overcharged.

      • Chris Campbell

        Have anything useful to add to the discussion? Are you just mad you don’t have a gaming PC for some reason? Maybe you did at one point, and plugging in a VR headset caused it to burst into flames, deleting your fan fiction rewrite of The Justice League that makes Synder’s cut look like Sesame Street in the process?

      • Jeff

        Aww poor baby mad because he can’t afford a PC gaming rig with VR headset… poor little boy.

        • The Mogget

          It doesn’t matter if you are a millionaire or not, no one likes to waste money being overcharged. Except PC gamers.

          If you are asking about my money, I prefer to build an actual drift car rather than a little simulator toy. I guess those poor little gamers can’t afford a real racecar.

          • rudeboyrg

            I have a nice gaming rig. 1080Ti, i7 processor, 16 GB RAM. I can buy either the Rift S or Rift Quest. Same price. I’m probably going to go with the quest though. I could easily connect the Rift S to my gaming rig but I don’t feel like being tethered by a cable and I do think being “free” is the future of VR. Maybe quest isn’t the final incarnation but it’s the way it is heading. Rift S just has a bigger library but I think it’s going to get phased out eventually. Quest looks more appealing and I could easily get the Rift S if I wanted to. My hardware could handle it. I just don’t find it appealing.

          • The Mogget

            If you have the rig then money is no longer a concern. Then it comes down to the games. If you are ok with the game selection on the Quest, then the convenience makes the Quest a clear winner. If you have to have a certain game, like the driving simulator Assetto Corsa, then you should get the Rift.

          • Luke Dion

            Shut the fuck up cunt no one is going to read that autistic illiterate mess of garbage you just wrote. You are a dumb bitch with extremely low IQ and a love for a brown cock, what a nasty bitch made homo.

  • NoVaStarGalaxay Playz

    I still think the Rift S will be better because 3 hours of playtime is noting and why would you want to use VR outside of your house

  • Pizzy

    My question is about the quest battery?

  • Amazing comparison! I found this really informative. Thank you for sharing it with us.
    Virtual Reality Social

  • KOK

    I’ll wait on the Rift X!

    ;)

  • Hermy

    Labo Vr… 340$ if you don’t own a switch yet… (if you do it’s 40$)
    370 gramm weight, play REAL games like zelda botw in vr…
    These two just have better resolution, but a way worse experience.

  • mullingoverwhichvrtopurchase

    I have been mulling over which VR set to purchase for a while now.
    Then I saw the news about to release S and Quest so thought I would hang on for the release.
    From everything I have read and viewed since then, especially the last few days, the S is overpriced for what it is, since I want the best possible VR experience given that I am a tech and have a monster computer, I would opt for the old Oculus Rift over the S or Quest, except now, prices are a bit silly on the old rifts as everyone tries to cash in on Oculus not making it anymore.

    So now, instead of Rift, I am thinking HTC Vive, even the Pro version with 110 field of view.
    Poor Oculus, you lost my interest./