oculus rift s headset and controllers

Oculus Rift S Is Official: 1440p LCD, Better Lenses, 5 Camera Inside-Out Tracking, Halo Strap, $399

Comments (278)
  1. Oneben says:

    Seems like pretty minor improvements to me. Enjoying how both Rift and Vive are going with inside out tracking for their new headsets though.

  2. Justin Hogue says:

    Nice resolution upgrade.

    1. Azreal42 says:

      Really ? Is it me or the quest has a better resolution ?

      1. D3stroyah says:

        and…you’re right.

        1. Mike Hearn says:

          The one and only thing I was waiting on to upgrade from the CV1 was a significant reduction is SDE. I mostly race and space sim, seated, so while the on unit cameras are great they really don’t impact me at all.

          But we are lowing the refresh rate and roughly 40% pixel increase….not sure its worth it :(.

  3. Dylan says:

    awesome, and the price is right.

  4. Schorsch says:

    OMG they got rid of the fantastic Rift audio, one thing Luckey insisted AFAIK. And replaced it with some lame cheapass audio from the strap? Ugh…

    1. xxHanoverxx says:

      It works on the Go just fine. Spatial audio and all. I’ve never had an issue with it.

  5. Justin Davis says:

    I have no interest in this. Small res bump with 10 Hz reduction. No thanks. Add built in wireless, and you may have had me.

    1. OkinKun says:

      No one will be able to notice the difference between 80 and 90 hz… There’s a good chance that 80 works better on the screen panel they choose, in terms of pixel switching and times.

    2. Guru Guy says:

      Its not made for us, its made for new to VR users. Adding wireless would bump the price another several hundreds etc. Its already too much at $399.

      1. Justin Davis says:

        I’d buy it at $600 with built in wireless.

        1. Guru Guy says:

          Many of us would, but most consumers are not going to spend $600 for a VR headset .Even if they were to convert 100% of existing PCVR owners to a new $600, that doesn’t do anything to get new users into VR.

          With that said, I am puzzled Rift S cost more than Rift since they decided to focus on driving down cost of PCVR adoption vs bringing out a high end headset.

          1. Justin Hogue says:

            It won’t cost 399 in the holiday season.

          2. Justin Davis says:

            I’m not questioning Facebook’s motivations. Those USB sensors had to go. Even I had to struggle getting 3 sensors to work. Adding cameras and bumping up the resolution increased the cost.

      2. Keith Ian says:

        It is also made for existing VR users like me who appreciate the Pros, especially for those of us who have a house where the living room will look quite a bit better now without sensors stands and wires all over the place. No more God Rays, count me in!!!

      3. Keith Ian says:

        It is also made for existing VR users like me who appreciate the Pros, especially for those of us who have a house where the living room will look quite a bit better now without sensors stands and wires all over the place. No more God Rays, count me in!!!

  6. Rigelleo says:

    The increase in resolution is disappointing: If the FOV is the same the pixel perceived dimension will be only 17% smaller than that of the old Rift

  7. Seanm57 says:

    Well that sucks. I was hoping for quest with a tether essentially. This is a huge disappointment. I travel with the rift and fits my luggage great. Now this giant, bulky, halo crap? Ugh. LCD?! Ugh. So much for enjoying anything in space.

  8. Kevin White says:

    Some improvements, some steps down. That controller tracking is bound to be much better than the Odyssey.

    Would like to try it.

  9. Rumpelstiltskin says:

    Why the hell are they removing physical IPD adjustment, a feature that is known to reduce VR related health issues such as eye strain and motion sickness? Feels like Rift S takes one step forward and two steps back.

    1. OkinKun says:

      Because with good enough lenses, with a wide enough sweet-spot range, you really don’t need a physical IPD adjustment. Software can easily correct the overlaps for the images to make the IPD correct.

      1. dsadas says:

        you are not there yet buddy…. right now we still need physical IPD adjustment. This is going to be crap for people with out of range IPD.

        1. TJ Studio says:

          Get out of the internet for good you toxic 8-year old kid!

    2. kontis says:

      Hard to do with a single screen. The cost of that 1 LCD screen will be probably less than 30% of the 2 OLED screens that were in the Rift.

      1. daveinpublic says:

        I wish they could allow the lenses to move without needing 2 separate screens. Just have the screens ‘render’ further apart while physically moving the lenses. It’s beyond my paygrade, but I feel like that’s possible.

  10. Filmgeek47 says:

    Seems like a very solid upgrade to me. Basically a Vive pro with inside-out tracking for 1/3 of the cost (the slightly lower resolution should be more than offset by the superior sub pixel arrangement).

    The drop in refresh rate is a bit curious, but oculus has a good track record for engineering the heck out of their hardware from a comfort/visual quality standpoint, so I’m fairly confident it won’t be a noticeable downgrade.

    Can any go users comment on the audio quality? That’s honestly my biggest concern.

    1. elev8d says:

      I’d say it’s a more expensive Odyssey with worse screens and no headphones. This is clearly cost cutting. The original Rift cost a lot to manufacture, so they went away from dual OLEDs to a single LCD, got rid of headphones, all the LED lights and sensors for tracking. This is way cheaper to manufacture.

    2. Rudl Za Vedno says:

      Vive PRO and Odyssey+ have much better 1440x1600px AMOLED panels and S has 1280x1440px LCD panel. How can you say they’re the same?

      1. Gaius Marius says:

        The lenses in the Vive Pro are ass. The Rift S offers higher clarity, which increases the resolution detail.

    3. wow says:

      Lmao… I dont even know what to say other then fanboy alert

  11. TheNexusLord says:

    Sounds good for what it is meant to be. A little more expensive than I would have hoped, for just the headset. But as long as they keep the bundle with the dedicated VR console low enough, FOculus will reach their 100 million install base goal, and give PSVR 2 a run for their money in 2020. ?

  12. Mike549 says:

    I can’t get excited about this. I have the Rift and Odyssey, both of which are OLED. I don’t think I will get the Rift S. The Quest is so much more exciting and different anyway, that I’m saving my money for it.

  13. True_poser says:

    That’s massively underwhelming.

    Quest is stellar and Rift S is… like Lenovo Mirage Solo, I’d say.
    Good to mediocre in various areas and nothing to be excited about.
    And, like with Mirage Solo, no way to put your head on the headrest comfortably.

    I’d prefer a tethered Quest without SoC, but with integrated headphones as controllers are reportedly the same.

  14. TJ Studio says:

    Why are you all whining about Oculus Rift S? This is actually a good upgrade for PCVR systems. (Despite the bit of decrease for a refresh rate) I’m totally getting that later after I get both, Oculus Quest, and a VR Ready PC.

  15. Gustavo Fantini says:

    Gradually lowering the barriers of entry. That’s what the Rift S is all about.

    It launches at a lower price than the original Rift with added controllers.

    It is capable of room scale VR out of the box. And is way easier to set up.

    It doesn’t raise the specifications of the required PC 3 years after the original. So it effectively lowers the price of admission on that front too.

    To me, Oculus and Sony are the current players who seem to be making the right moves.

  16. Azreal42 says:

    Well, that’s disappointing :/

    1. Albert.CR says:

      Totally, my money goes to HP.

      1. Arkanon says:

        So you’d pay $200 more for worse tracking and worse controllers, just for a resolution/refresh bump that requires more gpu power…

        1. xxHanoverxx says:

          Not to mention stepping out of the Rift ecosystem and starting over…good luck.

          1. peteo says:

            Pimax can play oculus games.

          2. Mike Wilson says:

            It’s sad that people have accepted that walled garden.
            Imagine if you couldn’t watch your blu-rays because they were made for a SONY blu-ray player, and not a Toshiba; even though the Toshiba has better resolution, lol

          3. xxHanoverxx says:

            It’s not really a walled garden. It’s more convenient just to put on the headset and go. I can add external apps to Oculus’s ecosystem. Not to mention Oculus Home and the social stuff. HP isn’t going to be the VR Software Innovator like Oculus is. I’ll stick with the company that focuses on one thing, whose entire existence hinges on one technology.

            I’m also 47 years old and know that all new technology starts off with proprietary technologies until a standard is figured out. At least things are more open when they started.

          4. Mike Wilson says:

            It’s a walled garden in the sense that your software is locked to a specific platform. It’s just sad that hardware manufacturers think they will be able to control the direction VR goes by locking people into a specific scenario. Why not just let the best hardware and ideas win?

          5. Justos says:

            i didnt realize revive stopped working? people are playing rift games on other hardware just fine. sure its a hack, but its disingenuous to ignore that half the community isnt already using and enjoying it.

          6. care package says:

            Ya, like Apple, or all those console gamers. Just sad. lol
            I went with what I decided was the better product when I went with the Rift. It certainly wasn’t because I loved it’s ‘walled garden’.

      2. Azreal42 says:

        I’ll probably go to the pimax. Damn i was waiting for so much more !

        1. ben2 says:

          If you go to the pimax you’ll definitely learn the true meaning of the word “disappointing”. 🙂

          1. Icebeat says:

            I am a Pimax user for a couple of months and you are just a facebook troll

          2. koenshaku says:

            Pimax has some serious QC issues and the blurring edges of the lenses is said to be pretty jarring. Not to mention I hear a GTX 2080TI still runs into issues trying to maintain 90fps. ?‍♂️

          3. peteo says:

            I have a 2080 (non TI) and it runs fine. People are even using 1070’s (their version of ASW/Motion smoothing works good) The resolution and fov is just amazing. I’ve been playing Fallout 4 VR for 2 months now on the 5k+ and every time I’m just blown away how good it looks. Pimax the company has growing issues and there are some software issues (They are trying but need to do better). But overall the HMD is great and I would never go back to the Vive or the rift

      3. HybridEnergy says:

        You guys don’t like HTC probably but I would really never consider anything that doesn’t have the wireless option anymore. That’s me though cause I’ve tried it. lol

    2. daveinpublic says:

      You have to read the room. Demand for PC VR is from a highly vocal minority on sites like these. Oculus is giving Rift users a good upgrade (resolution and comfort bump with less setup) while focusing efforts on what they see as the mass market with Quest.

      With so many companies either dropping out of the VR race, or charging ‘enterprise’ prices, it’s great that Facebook is finding ways to continue to serve the consumer PC market. I think having the halo design, upgraded resolution, and 5 camera insight tracking is a great answer to both WMR and Vive.

      1. Mike549 says:

        They read the room (or predicted the future) with the Quest. PC VR headsets should cater more to people wanting higher specs, while headsets like the Quest will be more for mass adoption. So it’s ironic that the Quest has better specs than the S in many ways, especially OLED instead of LCD.

        1. GIBBS v2 says:

          I do think the S should be better than or blow the Quest specs away. Charge $400-500 for it. The early adopters, the PC master race as they say would support and be all over that.

      2. Azreal42 says:

        I was one of the kickstarter backer, i did own a hmd before the rift even exists. And a that time, since no one else own an hmd, the market was inexistant, the only few vr applications were mostly hacks (arma <3).

        So, more people meaning bigger market, meaning more vr softwares, and software matters a lot.
        That's why we need simple, and for that, inside out tracking is more plug and play.

        But lot of people are also ok to buy iPhone at 1500$. There is a market for a premium VR products, and oculus already has a something "cheap" (quest).
        So i was waiting for something to create the brand, something that would sell vr, something expensive but so cool it would make people dream. I was waiting… more.

        1. xxHanoverxx says:

          Yes, but many people aren’t paying $1500 up front.

          1. HybridEnergy says:

            That’s what he just said the quest is for.

      3. Guru Guy says:

        Agree, but Rift S should be lowering the cost of VR entry to new user, not increasing it.

        1. Xron says:

          The specs needed are about the same as with original rift. So Gtx 1050ti perf. might be enough.

          1. Guru Guy says:

            I mean the Rift S is $50 more than existing Rift – so itll be awhile before it gets down to a more ‘impulse buy’ cost of $249-299

          2. TTinSB says:

            it’s not! I had a 1060 OC and just upgraded to the 1660 TI, because most of the titles where to slow. Modern games like Fallout 4 VR have 1070 as minimum requirements.
            The 1050 TI is much to slow.
            As far as i can say he 1660 TI seems to be a good entry level VR card.
            1080 or RTX 2070 is more recommended.

      4. GIBBS v2 says:

        Well said. The market to tap is the general consumer (non-PC), the mass market as you say. They will fuel growth and interest in VR and fund it. Facebook hopes to eventually sell millions of them like a Nintendo Wii’s making it the go-to, VR gaming console. Thats the prize they are chasing.

      5. Schorsch says:

        You so casually say “serve the PC market”, but I see a Lenovo headset where Oculus slapped their logo on. If I was a pessimist, I’d interpret this as Oculus very real already having given up on PCVR. This HMD screams “we don’t care about PCVR whatsoever. Now go away, and let us work on mobile VR, where our priorities are”. This is the msg I am getting.

      6. HybridEnergy says:

        This is a really strange way to serve the PC market when there are better options already available for months. Price aside, but the PC market is typically filled with people who spend $$$ on this hobby. HP meanwhile releases a 4k headset with RGB display, now that’s serving the PC market. Those of us who have had a taste of wireless also and see how you can’t go back once you do are also scratching our heads that all this junk is still being announced with a tether.

    3. TJ Studio says:

      What do you mean disappointment? You mean don’t like it or something?

      1. Lurkily says:

        The Quest is sporting better specs than this headset. The Quest will have games or ports tailors to run specifically for the Quest, but the Rift S will be running whatever the player’s PC is capable of running.
        That means that the Quest, with fixed capabilities, has better color and resolution than the Rift S, which may be called upon to run much more demanding software that may be much better able to benefit from resolution.
        I mean, why, why would they not just put a cable on the quest, take out the processing, and release equivalent standalone and PC sets? Why gimp the PC side, which will suffer more for it?

  17. Jasper Ball-Baggins says:

    I hope this thing truly can duplicate the room scale of the three sensor setup. I had two sensors for the first week of having a Rift. Buying the third one changed everything and made for a huge game space with flawless capture. I mean, not even a stutter or glitch. I’m all for inside-out and welcome it. But it better damn sure match what three sensors can do. If it can’t I’ll endure the sensor setup and stick with Rift instead of S.

  18. Aidan Musson says:

    Well, time to upgrade! Awesome!

    1. kontis says:

      How can a headset that in many ways is inferior or almost identical be called “an upgrade”?

      1. Aidan Musson says:

        Better lenses and better screens are definitely an upgrade. Switching from the Rift to the Go for media consumption and back really highlights the need for better visual fidelity.

      2. Azreal42 says:

        It is not inferior in price ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        1. Lurkily says:

          I got my Rift for $350 about 4 months ago. This is equivalent in cost to the Quest, with lesser specs.
          Why, why would the specs be worse on the PC offering? That’s EXACTLY what could best utilize the limits of those specs. Why not just take the processing out of the Quest and put a cable on it to run software from the PC?

      3. ben2 says:


        – higher resolution = less sde
        – almost no godrays
        – better headstraps
        – only 1 usb required (no struggle with usb ports),
        – longer cable
        – no sensors (no need to rearrange your room)
        – more space for eye glasses (and official support for add-on lenses)
        – easier setup
        – full backward compatibility
        – for the same price

        – lower fps (also less demand on the gpu tho)
        – heavier hmd
        – lcd screen
        – software ipd

        I wouldn’t say any of this inferior.

        1. ZGRabbit says:

          lower fps? Rift S is still 90hz I believe.

          1. kdiamond01 says:

            nope, 80hz now.

          2. Jacob Carlson says:

            It’s 80

        2. Red Dotter says:

          Why is software ipd a con? My rift’s visual ipd slider stopped working shortly after purchase. I would much rather have a software ipd that doesn’t wear or is uncomfortable to adjust like the physical slider.

          1. dsadas says:

            because you are an idiot that’s why…. It’s because people with bigger IPD won’t be able to use it. That’s why.

          2. LaRocky says:

            And you used it to verify your statement or are you just assuming that is the case?

          3. TJ Studio says:

            Get out of the internet for good toxic 8-year old kid!

      4. DevilsAdvoctate says:

        Higher res and frees up my sparse USB ports on my ITX build, It’s good for me, granted not for others. Just wish it was £299 🙂

        1. Scoopskie says:

          Wait till Christmas and it will be

      5. Tommy says:

        No more sensors, higher rez screen, almost no god rays, screen door, or light bleed in, passthrough cameras. That is a whole lot of upgrade

        1. Icebeat says:

          and LCD

          1. daveinpublic says:

            And you can flip up the visor.

        2. Caleb Mills says:

          Seriously, if it were the same specs, but no sensors I’d still want to upgrade. That is huge for me.

          1. Keith Ian says:

            I completely agree. Finally something that will make sense in my living room without god rays, less screen door, no more resetting the sensors or having sensor errors everytime someone accidentally moved my sensor stand, I can’t wait! 3 Less wires and no more wire running across my room, under a couch, to reach the 3rd sensor. More ports open on my PC…yay!

        3. koenshaku says:

          To be honest I preferred my htc vive OLED over my Lenovo Explorer LCD display because the trade off is higher contrast, more vibrant colors and truer blacks opposed to looking at how flat your colors are more clearly with the slight resolution bump. That’s just my opinion though.

  19. Nelson Tutorials says:

    Releasing this Spring already, nice. : D

  20. John_Westra says:

    I’m pleased to see the move to Inside-Out tracking. Those of us who’ve been hauling around the Rift or Vive for Demos appreciate it. The REAL gem in this upgrade element, is the need for only one USB 3 Port. The other spec upgrades are certainly less significant. At $399 it’s a no brainer new purchase or upgrade.

    1. Joseph Schisser says:

      Inside out tracking has the potential to be great. But for the love of all things, add a camera to the back of the unit to track controllers behind our backs. I’m willing to spend the extra $3-10 bucks on the headset if it actually covers my entire play area like a 3 sensor arrangement does.

      1. care package says:

        They probably would have if it warranted the cost, which it obviously didn’t.

      2. impurekind says:

        If inside-out is the future then I really hope they start adding more cameras around the back and sides of these headsets for this reason.

        1. dk says:

          sure …also in 2 years when the sd835 or something like it is dirt cheap controllers will have inside out tracking too

          antilatency has inside out tracking controllers that r pretty small and not that expensive but it’s using ir led strips on the ground for markers

      3. lujho says:

        That would require having electronics in the headstrap, which introduces an extra failure point (like how some Rift headphones stop working after a while). Keeping the headstrap “dumb” is a sound decision.

  21. Romulo de Castro says:

    It is so disapointing, it hurts…

    1. daveinpublic says:

      Yesterday a Rift was $399. Today, it’s $399, but you’ll get a higher resolution, more comfort, less setup, better lenses, and the best inside out tracking in the industry with 5 cameras plus it’s coming out in like a month.

      1. Matthew White says:

        It’s ridiculous to even be disappointed at this since all signs were pointing to it being a minor refresh. This seems fine, I’ll probably sell my old Rift if the tracking proves to be better.

  22. Thomas says:

    Why a lower resolution than the Quest though ? this makes no fucking sense 🙁

    1. ViRGiN says:

      Cause they are already developing the same panel for GO. Keep in mind that render target for Quest is smaller than native resolution. On PC you will most likely end up upscaling to some point.

    2. Arkanon says:

      They’re at the same price point so there are trade offs/advantages for both headsets. For example the Quest can only do 72Hz; it’s pentile OLED so there are less subpixels and there’ll be greater SDE. etc…

  23. I hoped for a bigger resolution and lower price… but in general it seems a great product. I’m wondering if we developers will be able to exploit the passthrough as well…

    1. Justos says:

      they said not currently in the tested interview

  24. Sebastian Balaciu says:

    yes the second generation should be 4k like hp, very disapointing

    1. TJ Studio says:

      What do you mean disappointing? You mean you don’t like it it or something?

    2. daveinpublic says:

      Oculus was always about more than specs, it was also about price. Trying to get VR into the hands of the masses. Rift S continues to balance price and technology like a master. And it has the best VR headset at $399 with Rift S, hands down. Plus, it will probably get a sale at some point, a permanent price decrease at some point, keeping consumer PC VR alive and growing as it hits the sweet spot of sub $300 in the near future. Rift S is the best VR headset for ‘serious’ PC VR gamers at a normal price.

  25. MarkusOhReallyUs says:

    I just bought a second Rift for my son a couple weeks ago for his birthday. I knew the Rift-S was on it’s way and considered waiting but had to make the birthday. Having two headsets in the house is amazing and I recommend it to anyone with multiple gamers under one roof.

    To me the specs on the S appear to be worth the $50 premium. I have until 4/22 until my return period expires so if the S ships before that day, I may return and upgrade my son’s gift to an S.

  26. kontis says:

    + more convenient, integrated tracking
    + slightly better resolution and 3 RGB subpixels = better sharpness
    + targeting 80 PFS (10 FPS less = easier to maintain good performance)
    + better lenses (better clarity, less godrays)
    + passthrough for Guardian = better safety
    + better headstrap (halo)
    + more convenient integrated audio and a headphone jack

    – no IPD adjustment = some people, like the founder, Palmer Luckey (ironic?) might not be able to use it as comfortably as the Rift
    – no deep blacks (a downgrade to LCD instead of using OLED)
    – same single screen that is in a $199 standalone (!) Oculus GO
    – target framerate (refresh rate) lowered to 80 FPS (was 90 FPS) = slightly worse latency/responsiveness
    – after all those years the resolution bump is tiny
    – it’s heavier (this may not matter thanks to the new heasdtrap, though)
    – no integrated headphones (replaced with strap pipe with lower quality audio)
    – Controller tracking not as reliable – some (rare) poses are no longer possible
    – Oculus Touch halo will not protect your fingers like in the Rift 1

    This would be amazing for a low-cost (<300$) headset. For $400 I expected an actual upgrade. 5 years ago when people were asked for their expectations of 2019 headset this would be considered a huge disappointment – even the most pessimistic people didn't expect specs this low. Facebook was supposed to push specs to the limits with their money and research…

    1. Topless Stang says:

      Couldn’t have said it better

    2. Sharkz says:

      360° All-In-One Facebook Surveillance System.

      1. HybridEnergy says:

        If it sees any confederate memorabilia around it shuts off and bans your VR for 30 days.

    3. Azreal42 says:

      Also, cons: – Lower audio quality
      Do we know what kind of lens rift S have ? (Pancake?)

      1. MeowMix says:

        Rift-S will use the GO/Quest lenses.

        They;re really good (I’d say 80% reduction in God Rays, and Sweet Spot is much larger). Oculus probably has the best lenses on the market.

      2. Christopher Bandy says:

        On the other hand, if you already have good quality headphones and don’t mind the added weight, the added 3.5mm jack could make it a net improvement. The way I see it, if I get this(not sure if I will yet), I can use the built-in set for when I’m playing games, and then switch to my DT880s for movies or anything where I really care about the audio quality.

        1. Ellie 187 says:

          You don’t care about audio quality in games?? almost half of the experience is sound..

          but thankfully I can just plug in my VR Turtlebeach headset into this …

      3. zflorence1 says:

        Pancake lenses are more likely a Gen 2 (maybe 3 +) feature, not 1.5 so to speak. Abrash will be following this trail and holographic wave guides per his talk.

    4. ben2 says:

      Oculus would have pushed the specs to 8K/eye, 120Hz 200FOV easily, then all you guys would cry about extreme PC hardware requirements.
      PC GPU processing power / price has not changed since 3 years now, the Founder Edition GTX1070 I’ve bought at release still goes for the same price. The GTX2080 line has about 20-30% improvement for double of the price.
      Why do you expect Oculus to shoot itself on the leg by drastically increasing hardware requirements and reduce their user base?

      1. kontis says:

        Yeah you are right, the resolution vs GPU power is the actual reason!

        This is why Oculus GO with an OLD mid-range Mobile GPU has the same exact resolution and Quest with a slightly better, Mobile GPU will have resolution better than Rift.

        It totally makes sense!

        1. DevilsAdvoctate says:

          Yep and the games on the Quest are the exact same quality as on the Rift, You’re spot on.

        2. True_poser says:

          To be frank, Go’s refresh rate is limited to 72Hz and the target is 60.
          Also, Snap 820, while old, never was a mid-range SoC, it was a flagship one back in 2016.

          The difference in Quest vs. Rift games stems exactly from the GPU.
          On one hand, MSAA is almost free, on the other, any kind of realtime lighting is horrendously expensive, on the third you have quite a low drawcall batches limit, so in practical terms you reduce the number of materials you use on the models and sharply reduce the amount of interactable objects (sorry, this chair is technicall a part of the floor, so you can’t move it at all).

        3. HybridEnergy says:

          Kontis, your sarcasm of steal is something to be admired.

      2. Xron says:

        DUDE they lowered refresh rate, so these specs bumps look crappy… w/e lets wait for real 2nd gen…

        1. ben2 says:

          You missed the point: GPUs’ computing power increased with only 30% without dropping the price of the prev gen, so VR developers’ hands are tied:

          – they can target a small group of fanatic users who are willing to pay any amount for the best experience possible (pimax)
          – or they can move on to the pro market (Vive Pro)
          – or they can slowly increase resolution in sync with the performance of the currently affordable GPU-s (that’s what oculus is doing)

          1. Justin Hogue says:

            I agree.

          2. care package says:

            Oculus’ hands were tied IMO. It makes total sense to stick with OG PC requirements as to not alienate current Rift users with needing another PC upgrade

          3. JustNiz says:

            That makes no sense at all. How does this make Rift users need to do anything? If you want to get another headset that’s down to you. In this case it hardly seems like an upgrade if you already have a Rift though.

          4. care package says:

            You’re right, I worded it poorly, and changed it, and Rift-S isn’t an upgrade, so of course it hardly seems like an upgrade. It’s a Rift replacement.

          5. dz11 says:

            A VR capable PC has 50 times greater 3D graphics power than the Oculus Quest, yet Oculus give PC users a headset with lower screen resolution than the Quest. It doesn’t make a lot of sense unless Oculus has something against you guys.

        2. daveinpublic says:

          If you have current gen PC VR, you may not need to upgrade. But, if you’re new, this is way better than getting into the old system. They’re setting themselves up for the future right now. And current users could get benefits by upgrading.

          1. Xron says:

            I can understand it.
            I’m just kinda sad because I waited for true 2nd gen release next year (2020) and now we get this and it means we will have to wait 3years + again…

          2. Cole Park says:

            True 2nd gen isn’t until 2022 or 2023. Michael abrash has been saying this for at least 2 years.

          3. Leon Jimenez says:

            Yes if you told me 3 years this is all we should be getting from Oculus and HTC I would be disappointed. I Love my pimax 5k+ but it’s an enthusiast headset. I was hoping for something similar but with more polish. I will be getting the Quest and hope that brings people in but Rift S seems like a Lenovo WMR with Occulus’ name slapped on it.

          4. Neo Racer says:

            Yea not till the next consoles appear which will probably be their new baseline for specs.

        3. Guru Guy says:

          Right, that seems to bebthr goal. Rift Si isiust something to refresh Rift production and make it easier for those not already spoiled by VR to jump in, that being said, price is disappointing.

          1. care package says:

            I think the price might have something to do with Lenovo being involved

        4. MeowMix says:

          But increased resolution. Stop cherry picking your outrage.

          This was already rumored to be a Rift 1 revision, not a Rift 2. While I’m disappointed I won’t be upgraded my Rift to the Rift-S, I still think the Rift-S is a solid revision of the Rift headset.

      3. ClipHalfFull says:

        I wouldn’t.. my computer is a beast.

      4. True_poser says:

        Hardware requirements are not tied to the maximum possible resolution, it’s all adaptive nowadays.
        As you are not forced to play games in 4k 120 fps on a 4k 120hz display, you’re not forced to play in 2x1440x1600 on Odyssey.

        And the limiting factor for a lot of current VR games is the amount of VRAM as on 1050 2Gb half of the games in SteamVR market don’t even load.

      5. HybridEnergy says:

        “Oculus would have pushed the specs to 8K/eye, 120Hz 200FOV easily, then all you guys would cry about extreme PC hardware requirements.”
        Or you know it could just be at least res wise better than current headsets like the Vive Pro and Samsung at least being a later and current release.

        1. Kelly Rankin says:

          It would be different people crying for sure. My money is ready.

      6. Rosko says:

        I think the biggest frustration is they didn’t use the quest panels. 8k is obviously daft & you have simply created a stawman argument. But the quest panels would certainly of been more attractive. Rift 2 will come next year probably offer those quest panels as the rift 2. I think people wanted foveated rendering with rift 2 & 2k per eye but doesn’t even look like we will get that now. I think many high end HMD seeker will buy other products.

        1. AJ75 says:

          “I think many high end HMD seeker will buy other products.”

          Not the target audience. At all.

          1. Rosko says:

            You are correct its taken me a day to get it. I guess when i first heard about the Rift S I thought it would be released early next year & it would higher spec Rift 1.5. Then all of a sudden its being announced much sooner than i expected & i’m still expecting a 1.5. But you are correct this is for new PCVR users & its not really a 1.5. More like a new rift 1.0. I just wonder now if this new rift will allow for a higher spec Rift 2.0 as they don’t have to worry about those with slower computers wanting to spend less. They will go for a quest of this.

    5. koenshaku says:

      Yeah this thing is pretty much a Lenovo explorer with better tracking. The colors on LCD aren’t as vibrant as OLED either which is a bummer.

      1. Mike549 says:

        The Lenovo Explorer’s LCD screen looks very poor to me. I bought one and have used it very little. The Go is quite a bit better, but still drab in comparison to OLED. It’s hard for me to get excited about the Rift S because of this. Thankfully the Quest still will have OLED.

        1. TTinSB says:

          Oculus have nothing to do with Lenovo. The Oculus Go is made by Xiaomi. It has the MI Logo on the side.
          The LCD in the the Oculus Go is awesome. I sold my LG OLED Tv because i don’t used ist anymore.
          The Rift S will have the LCD and Lenses from the Go. Which is is awesome!

      2. The Go screen is also LCD but has very deep blacks. OK, not OLED deep but still deep. The huge advantage of LCD over OLED in VR is full RGB instead of pentile arrangement. So you lose something, you win something, overall i’day it is an upgrade.

      3. TTinSB says:

        OLED is just a manufacturing technique. This does not mean that it is better than LCD. There are bad OLEDs and good LCDs. The display of the Go is MUCH better than the Rift, not only in resolution. Also movies and series are much better in the Go than in the Rift.
        Therefore the Rift S is MUCH better.

        1. Joseph Schisser says:

          comparing “good/bad” LCDs and OLEDs is still comparing apples and oranges. They aren’t just manufacturing techniques, they are fundamentally different technologies. OLEDs are emissive. so there is no light loss between the emitter and the receiver, and blacks are truly black because the emitters are turned off. LCD is a filter, that blocks light from a background source. And since it is neither 100% effective at allowing the light to pass or blocking it we get <100% of the source light hitting our eyes and never see pure blacks.

          1. Sebastien Mathieu says:

            spot on!!!

          2. TTinSB says:

            Yes, bhut our world is not black.
            A good display needs accurate color reproduction.
            Look how many years apple refused to use oled’s, because they weren’t good enough.
            Today there are oled with good colour reproduction, but they are very expensive.
            Therefore LCD is the right choice for the rift, because I don’t want to pay 1000 for it.
            In practice, you can only see the difference in black if you actively look at it. With normal use this is not noticeable, as most films use dark grey backgrounds anyway, not black ones.

          3. Cl says:

            Oculus quest has 2 oleds screens and is the same price as this though. Also it has more internals that add price. Oculus s should be more like $250.

          4. AJ75 says:

            Clearly you do not have an OLED tv. Nothing else comes even close.

          5. wow says:

            Apple also has had some of the worst phone displays every year. Whereas the phones rocking amoled have been the top rated displays

    6. “Same single screen that is in a $199 standalone (!) Oculus GO”

      Have you seen the Go screen and optics? They are jaw-dropping, putting to same headsets that cost 5 times as much. So I think you are talking BS.

      1. D3stroyah says:

        Go looks good but it’s a VERY inexpensive device. “Top notch PC VR” should be TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

      2. HybridEnergy says:

        Jaw dropping if you’re still on a 2k Vive OG or Rift 1.

      3. MeowMix says:

        Ya, GO looks really good compared to Rift (CV1). However, I think many of us were hoping it would use the Quest screen and thus manual IPD.

        Rift-S is still a solid and overall good revision to Rift.

        1. Icebeat says:

          It could be a good revision 2 years ago now is shit. Seriously for 100$ less you can have a Odyssey+, is it anyone with brain still working on Oculus VR or everyone moved to AR division?

        2. Jim P says:

          Atleast the Quest screen.

        3. Jim P says:

          Atleast the Quest screen.

    7. TTinSB says:

      I have both HMD, the Rift and Go and I use them both a lot.
      The display of the GO is MUCH better than that of the Rift. A dream comes true to have the awesome look of the Go in the Rift.
      Finally the crap with the sensors is gone. This is the absolute horror when you have windows or the sun is shining. Constant problems with tracking. It won’t happen again via camera, hopefully it will work as well as in AR apps on the iPhone.

      But the Xiaomi “speakers” of the Go are total rubbish. I can’t believe they’re putting this garbage into the rift now. The headphones of the Rift were really great. Having to handle additional headphones and cables is awful.

      PS: What do you mean protect fingers?
      The touch controllers are open at the front, so no fingers are protected. Do you even have a rift?

      1. MeowMix says:

        I believe they’re using the revised Quest sound pipes. They’re supposed to be better than GO, but obviously still worse than the dedicated Rift headphones.

      2. Bundy says:

        You should see the cut on his finger my boy got when he whacked the desk playing Superhot. The Rift controllers definitely do not protect fingers.

      3. True_poser says:

        I replaced the default headstrap with a spare DAS lying around on my Go (after replacing the battery with a 3400 mAh one, of course).
        Surprisingly, it almost exactly fits, just a centimeter wider than needed and with a bit of force needed to put it into place.

        If you don’t move it up or down (a bit of a duct tape will help with fixing it in place) it’ll hold nicely.

        So, you’ll end up with a surprisingly useful device for just a significant amount of effort and more than 100 USD in parts and… yeah, don’t do that, it’s stupid.

      4. John says:

        I’m surprised to hear that. I was pretty disappointed by the display of the Go. There are still def god rays, blacks are greyish, the FOV is tiny and so is the “sweet spot” (don’t move your eyes or let the hmd move a bit or everything is blurry like hell). The SDE is also still very noticeable. Overall my next HMD will have to be a major bump up for me to be tempted to shell out a single dime.

      5. dz11 says:

        I like the sound in the Go.

    8. wow says:

      imagine the HP Reverb with Rift S tracking… damnnn

      1. Sebastien Mathieu says:


      2. dk says:

        someone needs to transplant the screen 😛
        ooooor how can I forget search for …….”Windows Mixed Reality headset with Knuckles EV2 (playing some Climbey)” ….but u need the external satellites

        1. wow says:

          I’m thinking of reverb + vive lighthouses. I know someone with o+ and he hasn’t had any problems

    9. Adel O says:

      After all these years you don’t have the cheap horse power to drive it at constant 90FPS

    10. TDplay says:

      It’s a downgrade marketed as an upgrade.

  27. Tommy says:

    Hell yeah! Loving the camera placements. Looks like I will be upgrading! Would still like to hear more about the Cosmos though…

  28. Firestorm185 says:

    The S seems like a bit of a mixed bag, in my opinion, like Kontis was saying. The lens upgrade and the resolution bump is nice, the halo ring will help with comfort (although the other strap was just fine for my head) but at the same time we’re losing refresh rate and headphones, IPD adjustment for low or high IPD’s, so many things that worked well on CV1. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

    1. Guru Guy says:

      I think most of us that have had realistic expectations are feeling this way. For me, mainly the fact it cost more than Rift is puzzling. Its obvious you will be able to get CV1 audio parity with clip on headphones (ie. headphone jacks) but thats even more cost.

    2. MowTin says:

      You can plugin your own headphones. Not sure how I feel either. I never tried the Go so I don’t know how much the image improves.

      1. Michael Kim says:

        I have the Go and the Rift. With Go you can hardly see the SDE, I could never enjoy watching movie with rift, but I enjoy watching movie with Go any the time. The image is very sharp as well (much easier to read text). Some says it is better than Vive Pro and Odyssey.That is because it uses LCD. downside is you wont see pitch black with LCD like in OLED. Question is that is the LCD screen of Rift S exactly the same as GO or better and improved?

  29. Rob says:

    The HP Reverb tells you what the price of a real Rift 2 would have cost in 2019. I’m afraid we’re in for a long wait.

  30. Arkanon says:

    I guess I’d be disappointed about the downgrades but this comes at $399, which is significantly less than the upper market HP Reverb ($599) or even the Odyssey+ ($500), yet still has many upgrades (extra sensors, spatial audio, better controllers).

    They could’ve priced higher but by being more competitive they’re going to get more consumers into VR thanks to that lower barrier of entry.

    And does anyone honestly think they’ll be able to tell the diff between 90Hz and 80Hz during gameplay? I really doubt it.

    1. koenshaku says:

      Except you can find the odyssey+ on sale for $300 often and you get OLED with anti SDE screens and a higher resolution with spatial audio still that actually covers your ears for better immersion.. I do applaud the extra sensors though and I have been a critic of why MS has not done this yet, but tracking is good enough for the most part especially with the odyssey+.

      1. Mike549 says:

        I bought the original Odyssey and it’s a significant upgrade over the Rift for media. Although the Rift controllers are a lot better still. I guess the Rift S will have improved tracking over WMR headsets, but really tracking has never been much of a problem with them in the first place. For my use, the only advantage of the Rift S over the Odyssey (not even the + model which is better still) would be the more ergonomic controllers. I can’t see upgrading for inferior picture quality, especially since a significant portion of my VR time is watching movies in virtual theaters where LCD is a big step backwards.

  31. James P. says:

    This is a good incremental update, keeps the Rift from being obsolete, but the not the major step forward we were waiting for.

    1. kontis says:

      It is not an upgrade. It’s a “sidgrade” with many upgrades and downgrades – for the same price and after all those years.

      1. daveinpublic says:

        Same price at launch. Which is typically the very highest it can be. This leaves room for Oculus to drop the price considerably in the future. The competitors won’t be able to keep pace with the price.

        With the exception of WMR which has already said they’re not planning on upgrading in the near term, so the tracking will remain a problem. Rift S is inside out tracking for serious gamers, they’re the only show in town on this front right now.

  32. Bundy says:

    I think I’ll wait for the next gen before I upgrade. This isn’t enough of an improvement.

  33. cwsluke says:

    For the price this is awesome. They used some things I love about PSVR (unfortunately weight isn’t feasibly one of them). Headband, no IPD, and price point.

    Now I don’t wear glasses so this may be just me but my psvr lenses get pushed so close my eyelashes touch them. I hope you can do this with the rift s as well, because it impoves FOV and brightness for me. I just got an odyssey plus and while I love certain things about it I still go back to PSVR. Hope rift s can change that (had rift in past).

  34. Sebastien D'alterio says:

    This is the new generation of headset ? What a joke !
    I don’t believe anymore in the futur of VR with facebook.

    I prefer keep my money to buy HP Reverb or odyssey + and i decided to sell my occulus rift right now.

    They are just good to sell a dream

    1. daveinpublic says:

      Welcome to the world of low VR adoption rates. Just be glad Oculus is still catering to this audience and price point, and driving future adoption, so we can still get the software developers on board and chicken and egg problem solved. It’s the only well priced all in PC VR headset for serious gamers. WMR tracking isn’t good enough.

    2. Seanm57 says:

      Do yourself a favor and avoid the odyssey. I have one. While I love the image quality, the tracking is a problem. I always leave my arms at my side while navigating menus and in between doing something active in VR. Odyssey loses the tracking every time your hands are at your sides. The halo band puts too much pressure on the forehead. It’s not balanced like PSVR.

      Steam VR is not as polished as Oculus home either. Lots of immersion breaking jumps in and out of VR app while loading. Spotty performance at times. I tried to go with the Odyssey exclusively and just missed the more polished Oculus experience.

      1. Rudl Za Vedno says:

        Odyssey+ has better tracking as it has built in bluetooth. I had them both and Odyssey+ is way better. But you need to buy additional VR cover to make it comfortable.

      2. wow says:

        Try vive light houses.. better tracking than any oculus and much better headset than the s.
        Youre welcome

  35. Upsidian says:

    Time to sell my old Rift with 3 tracking stations and move on to the rift s

  36. t0xicity says:

    Nope. What, a couple bucks worth of IR LEDs to make it work with my $200 worth of sensors was just too much? Fuck the system that worked FLAWLESSLY, force us to just TOSS our IR sensors in the trash. Idiotic, and I couldn’t care less if VR dies now. Inside-out tracking is and always will be garbage, especially when compared directly to constellation tracking.

    1. Heaney says:

      Like we said in the article, the 5 camera inside-out solution is excellent. You won’t miss sensors.

    2. Ellie 187 says:

      if tracking is the most important thing you should have a vive …. so far nothing has beat the tracking

  37. Milad Dadash says:

    i was waiting for more
    not a singel lcd 1440p without ipd adjustment and headphone
    odyssey + is best yet for a hmd 400-600$

    1. OkinKun says:

      The IPD adjustment isn’t necessary, if the lenses have a wide enough sweet-spot range, it’s the same result.

      Shifting the left and right images closer or further apart on the screen, in software, has the same results as physically moving the screen itself. They probably have a little extra unused screen space in the edges to allow for this too, since they’re going this route.
      What more did you want? The IPD thing really should not be a deal killer for anyone except the most extreme edge cases, IPD wise.

  38. OkinKun says:

    Sounds interesting to me.

    People are freaking out over nothing. The choices they made, in lowering certain things, are actually quite reasonable, and probably have good justification for doing so.

    1. elev8d says:

      It looks to me like they are finally going to be selling Rifts with a solid profit margin. Everything about the S looks financial driven from the removal of headphones to the single low refresh rate low res LCD. I guess it’s good for investors, but not so much for consumers.

      1. wow says:

        Facebook wouldn’t do that they care about their consumers…

      2. OkinKun says:

        I wouldn’t say that. What I meant was, the things they removed or reduced, weren’t that important or noticeable really. The headphones were nice on the Rift, but I switched mine to the Oculus Earbuds, and this new S headset has a headphone jack, so it’s not THAT big an inconvenience for most people. The Go-style audio makes it easier to pass between people, and those Rift headphones were kinda clumsy.. Extra mechanical complexity that can, and frequently did break. The stresses from the headphones on the strap is probably what causes some people’s audio to die in 1 ear. So it’s good that they reduced mechanical complexity there.
        Lower refresh LCD isn’t that big a deal, it’s not a noticeable difference.. These days screens are made with VR performance as the intention.. But in the earlier days of VR, they just had to pick the best or good enough screens they could get, and OLED happened to be better.. But now that the research has gone into VR screens, LCD can also manage pretty good, and actually some people think LCD looks higher resolution, because it has more sub-pixels. 80hz vs 90hz is indistinguishable. I mean, I don’t know anyone who can tell the difference between my 90hz Rift, and my 72hz Go, so I doubt anyone will notice THAT 10 less on Rift S. heh

  39. mfx says:

    A few days ago I was sarcastically wondering if Oculus could be so bad that they screw up the Rift S on purpose to sell more Quests…….. They went even further than I thought…

  40. xxHanoverxx says:

    I’ll take both. I have no interest in stepping out of an ecosystem I’ve already invested heavily in. HP won’t innovate on the software side. I like Oculus Home and they’ve opened it up nicely so the hobbiests can create completely customized spaces.

    Rift S frees up USB ports and lets me remove the cables hanging around my room. It will fit better and have a pass-through camera. Higher resolution too. The Go’s external speakers work better than I thought they would, so the same audio here isn’t an issue for me. I don’t see any problem with this.

  41. GIBBS v2 says:

    Is the Question: Why is the S so cheap or Why is the Quest so expensive?

    1. Cl says:

      Its the opposite. They priced quest cheap and the S expensive to subsidize the lower price for quest. Because what they really want is standalone only. Thats the only conclusion i can come up with to why they are the same price given that the quest has oled panel and more internals.

  42. Boogie Nights says:

    HP just put one out with dual screens 4K (599.] . I was hoping for this on the S. I would have been happy to pay 599 for it. The only reason I’m still with Rift it’s because it the only one that has a true ecosystem and a company that puts there own money for priority (exclusive) games.

    1. wow says:


      1. Boogie Nights says:

        Everyone says revive is it 100% debugged?

  43. elev8d says:

    This should be $200 tops.

  44. Lettuce Cat says:

    Hot damn! I am so glad I made the right decision and went for the Pimax 5k+. It is a beast!

  45. wrapter says:

    Disappointed. LCD+80hz+same FOV=please make me money and I don’t care what you want.

  46. impurekind says:

    Yeah, it’s definitely not a Rift 2, but it seems like a decent alternative to the current Rift for now.

  47. Boogie Nights says:

    I am disappointed but I will be getting it. Only because for now the Rift has a true ecosystem and priority IP games. But if valve ever really gets into the game with company owned games and spends money for more IPs then I’m jumping.

    1. TJ Studio says:

      Disappointed means you don’t like it.

      1. dsadas says:

        kid go fuck yourself, you have no idea what you are talking about or what “disappointed” means. What are 12?

        1. TJ Studio says:

          Then get out! Toxic people aren’t welcomed on the internet!

  48. Rudl Za Vedno says:

    Look on bright side. We finally know what S stands for: Oculus Shit 🙂

  49. CursingLlama says:

    I’ll consider this upgrade, but I much like many others hoped for something more. Minimal upgrade, might just continue to wait for the knuckles and switch to a compatible headset when they release.

  50. OkinKun says:

    A lot of the negatives people are complaining about here.. Really are not negatives when you think about it. They’re not important factors, and no one will functionally notice those things.
    No one will notice 80hz vs 90hz, IPD isn’t needed cause lenses have real wide sweet spot now, LCD screens are much better for VR these days, than they used to be, and the audio is still there, and still has a headphone jack.

    1. Trenix says:

      A gamer knows the difference between a 60Hz refresh rate to one that is 144Hz. The closer you get to the screen, the more noticeable it becomes. The headset is also heavier, halo design has always been garbage, audio has been make low quality forcing people to buy or use their own headset, has worse tracking because it no longer has outside sensors, and has controllers similar to mixed reality headsets which are trash.

      There is nothing better about this headset, besides it’s resolution and lenses.

      1. SnowZA says:

        The difference between 60Hz and 144Hz is massive. The difference between 90Hz and 80Hz isn’t. I will reserve judgement on that till the thing is out in the world and has proper reviews.
        Heavier may or may not be a problem. A slight increase of weight can be more than compensated for by better balance and comfort. Again, I will wait and see.
        I do agree about the audio quality.
        The lack of outside sensors I consider to be a significant improvement, assuming the internal sensors work well. Just because the outside sensors are gone doesn’t automatically mean the tracking is worse. I will wait and see.
        If you don’t like the specs, get something else. However, calling it worse just because the specs aren’t what you were hoping for is just silly until we’ve actually seen proper reviews of the thing. There are many cases in the world where an item with slightly worse specs is preferrable to an item with “better” specs, but worse useability or other problems.

        1. Justos says:

          just want to point out, if you have the go, you can already test out 72fps apps

          72->90 is not noticeable for me, so why would 80 be a big deal? its not… for me at least

        2. Trenix says:

          1) While 10Hz may not be noticeable for a monitor, it certainty will be for a VR headset where the screen is attached to your face. While I don’t get motion sickness from these devices, this 10Hz may make a big difference for some. They should of kept it at 90Hz and instead gave us the option to reduce is for people who have worse computers.
          2) Heavier is a problem for people who enjoy moving around in a VR. In fact, isn’t that the point of VR? To move while you play? If you wanna watch a movie or sit down and experience VR, the PC devices aren’t the best options options available in regards to cost.
          3) Sensors are annoying, I agree. However outside-in tracking will be for the most part, more superior than inside-out tracking. You’d need the same amount of cameras behind you in order to compete with 360 degree tracking from sensors. By having more cameras, this will just increase costs, trade-offs, weight, and just about ruin you entire experience. Honestly I rather make my room look weird and have annoying sensors laying around than ruining my experience.

          1. SnowZA says:

            1) We will see. I’m not convinced – there are enough things running on headsets at lower refresh rates that I don’t think it is as big a problem as you think it is. On the other hand, until it is out, I just don’t know. Initial impressions of people who have seen it have been good. I will wait for a few proper reviews.
            2) I never said heavier isn’t a problem. I said it might not be. It depends on a lot of factors, not least of which is something we don’t know – how much heavier? If it is twice the weight, then yes. It’s a problem no matter what else they’ve changed around balance and comfort. If it is 5 or 10% heavier, but balance is much better, I’ll take it.
            3) I agree, external sensors can be more accurate than internal tracking… Assuming they are set up perfectly in an appropriate space. I am willing to bet that a significant portion are not. I don’t own any myself, but have used several different Rifts, Vives and PSVR setups. If the internal tracking is even 95% as good as an optimally set up external tracking setup, it will probably be better for most people than the current situation. Cameras are also theoretically not the only things tracking the controllers – so a lot depends on how well the combinations of sensors work. First impressions I’ve read seem good, but again, I will wait for reviews before making up my mind. There are just too many unknowns at the moment to definitively call it good or bad overall.

      2. OkinKun says:

        Hold on a minute. There is a BIG difference between 60Hz and 144Hz… Obviously people can notice THAT.. But the difference between 80Hz and 90Hz is too small for EVEN GAMERS to notice. It is simply an imperceivable amount. People can notice a difference of 84Hz, they can’t notice a difference of 10Hz.
        And anything about 72Hz works perfectly fine for 99% of VR users.. As long as that speed works well for that particular screen. The screen they choose for the Rift S is similar to the Go’s but faster, and actually it’s their fastest/lowest-persistence screen they’ve ever used. And when done right, low persistence can make even 72hz look great. A lot of gamers think the Go’s screen is great for space games, even tho it’s LCD.
        The tracking trade-off is debatable. The headset it self will never lose tracking, even if you crawl under a desk. lol That’s better than before, where if you turn the wrong way or crawl in the wrong place, you’d lose full tracking. Tracking with Rift S is actually a bit better… It’s almost never going to lose track of a player’s hands, with 5 tracking cameras build on it. It can see far enough behind you, farther than any other inside-out tracking headset, to handle pretty much anything your arms can physically move too.
        Resolution is higher. Subpixels and pixel fill is better. Persistence is lower. And even tracking is actually much better IMO. So yeah, it’s an improvement in some places, trade-off in others, but what they choose to trade-off was not actually important to begin with. Once people use the Rift S, they will realize there’s nothing wrong with it. A current Rift owner won’t want to upgrade, it’s not worth THAT.. but it’s perfect for new users and anyone who needs a new headset for PC. It’s the TOP of the line right now. Nothing better available.

        1. Trenix says:

          Honestly, you will notice a low refresh rate, especially gamers and people who have a screen attached right to their face. Refresh rate is very much more important for VR than a TV or a monitor. They shouldn’t have downgraded it. Also the tracking will not be better than outside in tracking, that’s a fact. It may be good and better than other inside-out tracking currently available, but it doesn’t compete with inside-out. There simply isn’t a camera behind you to make it become perfect and comparable.

          1. OkinKun says:

            Why would you say that?.. I’ve been using VR headsets since 2013, and gaming on high refresh monitors for a lot longer.. Trust me, VERY few people can notice a change of 10hz, when we’re talking about numbers over 70, on low-persistence screens, I certainly can’t.
            It’s not a matter of “downgrading” it. When a screen can turn off it’s frames as fast a low-persistence screens do, anything around 72hz to 90hz is fine. It’s about what works best for the particular screen they picked.
            Dropping the Rift S to 80hz also means they can keep the minimum spec requirements the same, even tho the resolution is higher.
            ..Also.. I didn’t say inside-out tracking was better than outside-in.. I meant that Rift S’s inside-out tracking is much better, than previous inside-out headsets.. when I said “better”. ALTHOUGH, with outside-in tracking, you can sometimes rarely lose tracking on the head, if you crawl or turn weird in certain circumstances, where as with inside-out tracking, the head should never lose tracking at all. You can lose hand-tracking with either system tho.
            Rift S’s tracking basically works exactly as good as outside-in tracking, as far as most people will notice.
            Rift S’s side cameras can see basically almost entirely behind you. You’d have to intentionally try to hide your hand where you can’t scratch on your back. lol

  51. Hone McBone says:

    It’s good they’ve moved away from the wacky tracking system of the rift, but with headsets coming out with eye tracking I’m not about to upgrade to one without that feature.

  52. Rudl Za Vedno says:

    What a disappointment. It’s basically Oculus Go for PC for $200 more. Why does this thing cost the same as Quest? Worse panels, not standalone, no manual IPD adjustment, yet the same price. Where’s the logic it that? Is FB working hard on pissing off PC VR Oculus fans? I could get Odyssey+ 100 bucks cheaper for god sake. So meh, I’ll pass.

  53. Nothing to see here says:

    Looks great but … can you flip up or slide out the visor to make it easy to put on? Will Oculus supply lens corrections for the 60%+ of the population that do not have perfect vision? Does the screen have a filter as used by the PSVR and Odyssey+ to greatly reduce the screen door effect?

  54. Les Vega says:

    I would have been fine with just new lenses and a resolution bump, but LCD, strap speakers, no adjustable ipd. No thanks I’m out!

  55. K Lawrence says:

    Now all they need is to add a bunch of new games.

  56. Aidan says:

    I have a friend who bought a new rift last christmas, I feel bad for him…

    1. Justos says:

      why? this new headset is a sidegrade not a full out upgrade. the original rift has some pros to it as well

  57. MichaelSt says:

    Those who think the lower refresh is to make it easier to play don’t understand what they did. They increased the GPU needs by upping the resolution, so to OFFSET that, they lowered the refresh. This means the headset can run on the same PCs as before. That’s all it means. If they didn’t do that, the bump up in resolution would also bump up the minimum requirements, which would knock some current gen people out requiring a GPU/CPU upgrade as well. They can’t afford to do that, so they made a trade off to keep all current PCs Rift S compatible by lowering the refresh.

    My concern is that to avoid motion sickness, I thought the target was 90fps. This downgrade may make people sick in the games that do a lot of moving around. Just a guess on that.

    1. gothicvillas says:

      Don’t forget, they also decreased FOV

  58. zflorence1 says:

    I’m very confused. Inside Out Tracking is the future, BUT the Rift was suppose to be for enthusiasts and power users who already shell out descent money on a capable PC. The Quest is the casual consumer product! Yet, Rift looses OLED, Refresh Rate, and has lower resolution than the Quest? This makes little sense. Rift should have been priced at $599 with substantial spec upgrades, knowing PC users upgrade their graphics cards. All of these compromises to keep it at the same price as the Quest and spec requirements as the original rift? I thought pricing Quest at $399 was brilliant and hit the reset button on price and tech expectations for the newer product line. Did I miss something? Anyone?

    1. zflorence1 says:

      Brendan Iribe: Hey you know we could…
      Higher Exec: No, $399.
      Brendan Iribe: But isn’t that for Quest? Can’t we…
      Higher Exec: No, $399.
      Brendan Iribe: Look, this product’s audience wants…
      Higher Exec: No, $399.
      Brendan Iribe: … I’ve got to go take a leak…

      1. dk says:

        …..and 200 for Christmas

    2. wow says:

      What’s even more funnier is that they could have just put a USB c port on the quest and made it a hybrid instead of going for the money grab

  59. perfectlyreasonabletoo says:

    Yikes. I’m having a hard time seeing this as a sidegrade let alone an upgrade. Losing IPD adjustment alone is kind of a disaster. Wasn’t VR supposed to become MORE consumer-friendly as time went on?

    No wonder the people who wanted to make a high-end product quit.

  60. Sebastien Mathieu says:

    disappointed… i’ll stick with my CV1 and VIVE, hope HTC has good news with the cosmos….

  61. Trenix says:

    I’m been seeing tons of Rift S criticism, also heard the FOV is actually smaller which is why they didn’t confirm anything about it. What a failure, Facebook you suck.

    1. Heaney says:

      The FoV is not smaller.

  62. fuyou2 says:


  63. fuyou2 says:


  64. Slappi says:

    Hey guys… quick question…. I have never had a VR setup before. Between the Quest and the Rift S which would you guys recommend?

    I have an intel i7/2070 computer already so that wouldn’t be an issue.

    I’m just confused about the specs. Seems like for the same price the Quest has the S beat but doesn’t need the computer.

    I would like to play games and watch movies.
    What do you think?

    Wish they just had the Quest I could also use on my computer. I must be missing something.

    1. Heaney says:

      Since you already have the high end PC, Rift S hands down.

    2. Charles says:

      With those specs, it sounds like you should be able to play most any PC VR title without a problem. I think the Rift S could be a good fit, especially since it would give you the freedom to load pretty much any non-Quest-exclusive experience. Plus, even if you just end up watching movies on it, the Rift S uses the same display as the Go (which I can vouch for personally as a strong choice for video watching).

    3. gothicvillas says:

      I would suggest looking first at VR games and see what you want to play. This will determine what headset you really need. Quest sounds very good but these will be mobile type games. If you want to be blown away how realistic looks sea and waves etc when you are in game, get PC wired headset.

    4. dk says:

      if u don’t care for how mobile is the quest …rifts is better …or a different desktop headset

  65. Fundamentalist Daleks says:

    How underwhelming.

  66. wow says:

    Well looks like i’m getting HP Reverb or Pimax(if they get their sh*t together)
    With these specs, I don’t get why they didn’t just slap an USB-C port on the Quest so it could be a hybrid headset.
    Very disappointing, oculus could have put a higher res panel in there to futureproof it and improved Asynchronous Spacewarp(ASW) for lesser GPUs but they know fanboys will buy this regardless of what they put in it so they will release incremental upgrades. Gotta love Facebook.

    1. gothicvillas says:

      I’ve heard people complaining about new HP tracking.. if they had 5 cameras like Rift S it would have been the best choice but it’s not.

      1. wow says:

        I know people with the o+ using vive lighthouses. That’s what I’d do.

  67. Trenix says:

    This is a downgrade for the same price, what a joke.

    – Better resolution
    – Better lenses

    – Everything else is worse than the original, literally everything.

    1. Ellie 187 says:

      the better resolution is more than enough for me … and i’m on a OG Vive … i’m seriously considering this one… and even if the 5 camera inside out tracking isn’t good enough, i’ll still have my base stations and controller and can mix it with knuckles whenever that releases

  68. GIBBS v2 says:

    The more I think about the Stadia announcement the more blown away by the potential it has. If rendering power is the single biggest hurdle to VR has right now they just potentially solved it. The Rift S versus the Quest decision becomes almost irrelevant in theory. I am sure within a year Google announces their own “Quest” style wireless headset with quality optics and resolution and all the rendering is delivered via Stadia stream. I am sure there are latency hurdles to resolve but they are pretty sharp over at google. Get the graphics of a $10 PC streamed to your $300-400 VR headset.

    1. Heaney says:

      Stadia’s latency is unfortunately far too high for VR.

      1. GIBBS v2 says:


    2. gothicvillas says:

      it could stream some VR content.. films, cartoons etc. But i dont see how coud they reduce latency to required VR standard for games with client side inputs,

  69. lujho says:

    If the controllers are identical, they should sell a bundle that has both headsets and one pair of controllers, OR a discounted Rift S sans controllers for $300 for people who want both and don’t want to buy controllers twice.

  70. Maciej Nowy says:

    Am I the only one who is not happy with insight out tracking? Somehow I prefer to have sensors if they providing better tracking, and lets be honest if your controllers are behind your back… well I just simply don’t believe that inside-out tracking working flawlessly then.

    When I read ‘5 sensors’ I thought to myself ‘great, one will be on the back strap – same place as psvr rear led’ that would make sense… and maybe would make dead-spot free inside-out tracking… but camera on the top? I dont think its necessary… if you lifting your hands/controllers above your head you looking at them most, if not all of the time.

    I think Ill pass on purchasing this one… Pretty happy with my pimax – apart of controllers I have to use with it. Waiting for knuckles.

    1. dk says:

      don’t worry in 2 years when the sd835 or something like it is dirt cheap controllers will have inside out tracking too

      antilatency has inside out tracking controllers that r pretty small and not that expensive but it’s using ir led strips on the ground for markers

  71. JesperL says:

    Not impressed.
    No bigger FOV seem stupid to me.
    If they just brought a 120-140, I would be happy, since it would be a great improvement to most of the HMD’s on the market.

  72. jasonmartino says:

    I’ll wait to hear the reviews, but this is an option. I have a Samsung which has better visuals and sound, but I have to deal with the sub-par controls and jump through hoops to play a Rift Exclusive. Since I’m going to get a Quest, the cross-play potential is nice. Plus Samsung makes you go through the crappy Windows Cliff House. If the Rift S has decent reviews and goes on sale, i may get one.

  73. οκ says:

    I have an Oculus Rift and buying this is a downgrade. Looks like my next headset wont be Oculus.

  74. Justos says:

    Going to wait this one out, while theres clearly some improvement the cost-cutting measures are very evident.

    399 is like the rifts 599 at launch for the headset alone. Expect some good price drops on this product.

  75. JustNiz says:

    Wow I bet the Oculus fanbois will be pissed.

  76. daveinpublic says:

    I want to hear more from the editors. What’s it ‘feel’ like? Is it a good VR headset to you? Do you like using it for long periods of time? Is it worth buying?

  77. impurekind says:

    OK, makes sense now that I know this is basically just the replacement and sligthtly newer and tweaked model of the current Rift, so sticking with the three-tier approach of the low-end and cheap Go, the mid range and standalone Quest, and the “high end” PC VR that is Rift. Good, because I was starting to worry you might be pulling a bit of a “Vive” and confusing/convoluting things a bit–but that’s not the case. Hopefully that means a proper Rift 2 won’t be too many years off too, for those people who are really looking forward to that.

  78. draez says:

    What a disappointment this is. Why bother with this? It’s an insult to everyone backing the CV1.