HTC might have given a first look at their new Vive Cosmos headset today, but they weren’t ready to offer many details. The headset is said to be compatible with tether to a PC, but the company also teased that it could be powered by a smartphone too, all under the ‘Vive Reality System’ platform. That’s left some questions about whether or not the headset will interface with SteamVR.

While the Vive originated from a deep partnership between Valve and HTC, in recent years HTC has made moves to be less reliant on Valve’s SteamVR ecosystem. Both the Vive Focus and now the Vive Cosmos have ditched the SteamVR Tracking technology in favor of optical inside-out tracking, and HTC has been focusing heavily on building out its Viveport content platform to pull users away from the SteamVR content library.

SEE ALSO
Viveport Infinity to Bring Unlimited VR Game Downloads to Subscription Members

So when HTC started talking about the ‘Vive Reality System’ (“a completely reimagined way for people to experience the virtual world—encompassing the total user experience from the moment a headset is put on to how content is interacted with,”) and didn’t mention Steam at all, it seemed like they were setting up the headset to be the start of their own, all inclusive ecosystem.

Executives were notably hesitant to talk about SteamVR compatibility for Cosmos when asked, but after some pressing, HTC has confirmed to Road to VR that Cosmos will be OpenVR compatible. Still the company company said it isn’t ready to talk about the “exact implementation.”

OpenVR is Valve’s open API that acts as the interface between VR hardware and software built against the OpenVR API. SteamVR is a runtime that implements OpenVR, which means that it’s interoperable with any OpenVR compatible headset. Because Cosmos is confirmed to support OpenVR, we know it’ll be able to run SteamVR too.

Image courtesy HTC Vive

And even though Cosmos will technically support SteamVR, it sounds like HTC doesn’t want that to be the default condition. The company plans to launch the Vive Reality System alongside the headset, and with it they want to have end-to-end control of the entire customer experience.

Details are still thin on the ground, but from our conversations with the company, we’re getting the sense that the plan is for Cosmos to run the Vive Reality System out of the box, instead of SteamVR. The Vive Reality platform itself could be built as an OpenVR-compatible runtime, allowing HTC layer in its own functionality in place of SteamVR—like the Viveport store, social services, and the default homespace, ‘Origin’, which they talked about today.

They could also potentially expose any OpenVR applications (including those from Steam) from within Vive Reality, effectively allowing users to access their SteamVR content through Vive Reality, though perhaps only if the content doesn’t explicitly rely on any Steam services (like social frameworks) in order to function.

The goal for Cosmos, it seems, is for HTC to make SteamVR optional, but not required, while Vive Reality stands in as the defacto platform.

For now, HTC doesn’t want to get into details, so we’ll have to wait to hear more about how it all comes together by the time Cosmos and Vive Reality launches later this year.

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. See here for more information.


  • impurekind

    But it’s just not a very pretty looking device, either the headset or controllers (the headset looks a bit meh and the patter on the controllers is just garish). And some people might genuinely believe how something like this looks simply isn’t important, maybe even more so because it’s VR, but that’s just pure ignorance talking. This thing is kinda fugly and that right there puts me off it. HTC needs to take a better look at what the likes of Oculus and Sony are doing with their devices and start putting out headsets that don’t look like slightly unfinalized developer versions and the like.

    • jean thompson

      Why do you say that people who don’t care about the way it looks are ignorant? I personally think it looks just fine and way sleeker than Vive and less boring than Rift, however, i really could care less what it looks like as long as its comfortable and everything else works the way Its supposed to. While im wearing it no one will be seeing it – >so why would I care? And why does that make me ignorant?

      • plrr

        I suspect he meant that “the market” will care what it looks like, or it matters to (many) people.

        • impurekind

          This here: Anyone who believes looks are not important, as in there aren’t a whole load of people who will in fact care about such things and literally pass on products that don’t meat certain aesthetic design standards, is ignorant of reality.

          • Raphael

            The lord hath spaketh and whomsoever questions his authority will forever burn in scorching wood chippings.

          • plrr

            Don’t act like a bully. Just don’t.

            And it would actually be incorrect to assert that esthetics are irrelevant. He’s right about that point.

          • Raphael

            Did I day aesthetics aren’t important? The point he fails to grasp is that just because he dislikes this design doesn’t mean anyone who has a polar opposite view is lacking an eye for aesthetics. I like the design of these controllers…does that mean I’m a retard?

          • plrr

            No. And no.

            You know the answers, of couse. This thread isn’t entirely constructive.

          • Raphael

            This thread is ridiculous.

          • impurekind

            It means you have bad taste.

          • Raphael

            Jog-on flappy.

          • impurekind

            You just can’t see it because you literally have bad taste and don’t know any better.

          • Raphael

            Grow up flappy.

          • impurekind

            Hey, as long as you’re happy.

          • Raphael

            Logically there must be a percentage who refuse to buy a particular hmd because they dislike the appearance. That certainly applies to a percentage of non vr gamers who regard current vr as clunky and heavy.

            I suspect most vr users looking to buy this are more concerned with spec. It’s not that common for an existing VR user to boycott a particular new headset because of its appearance but you are proof that it does happen.

            When choosing many other types of hardware… Aesthetic plays a significant role. I think it plays less a role in vr at this time because we’re still only just moving out of gen one and into gen1+. The choice isn’t that great… For me the appearance of vr isn’t a decider… I think they’re all ugly but I wooden live without the tech. I’m waiting for the first hmd that looks so good it gets an instant “wow”. I think my HTC VIVE is one of the ugliest. I think cv1 is less ugly. I understand that some may be more positive about the likes of cv1 and VIVE. I know some people like the look of psvr controllers and the gun. To me they look like toys…a person who uses a thrustmaster warthog tends not to be impressed by the plumber tube design of psvr controllers. The headset too looks ugh to me but it wooden stop me buying one.

          • Hivemind9000

            Agree wholeheartedly. I spend 99.999% of my VR time alone in my office. It’s the comfort and performance I care most about. I didn’t even consider what the Cosmos looked like until now. I assumed they looked goofy because they all have to have those front facing cameras, which I’m secretly hoping will allow some sort of passthrough capability (i.e. fakey AR).
            I guess if you’re prancing around in public with your Oculus Quest VR-lite, then looks might be more important, but let’s face it – we all look like dorks with a VR headset on, it’s just levels of dorkiness we’re splitting hairs on… ;-)

          • Raphael

            Yup, I think it’s way too early in consumer VR to be deciding based on looks as important as aesthetics are in most other consumer areas… It’s not a priority for most vr users. Maybe 10 years time when there’s a VR standard and a whole lot of brands and designs to choose… Right now none of these hmds are gonna be entering beauty contests. Sometime we’re gonna see the first vr headset that looks like something cool out of a sci-fi movie or with the same design elegance as a high performance car. That’s hard to achieve when the tech is still so bulky. I think I might have a go as a design project in cinema 4d and then 3d print a mock-up in metal filament.

          • impurekind

            Strange then that only Cosmos controllers have to look goofy–talking about that pattern here–but the Quest ones don’t. What is says, and this is my opinion but fact, is that they didn’t at all have to look goofy to get the job done. And, I even suspect Quest will offers superior inside-out tracking too, which we’ll all find out soon enough when the headset release.

            But you’re right, it is just levels of dorkiness at this point. I’m just trying to get as little of it as possible, and not encourage companies to literally design it into their products if they don’t have to. lol

          • Warscent

            But orange man bad.

          • Alan Dail

            certainly looks are important, but functionality and comfort are for the most part more important. Inside out tracking looks better than two base stations with wires going to them standing on tall stands in the corner of the room. Yet, my Samsung WMR headset sets unused because the inside out tracking implementation loses tracking too often and the headset is very, very uncomfortable. It barely even fits on my head.

          • impurekind

            But the point is, and one that has been demonstrated multiple times on existing VR headsets, is that you really don’t have to totally compromise the looks to get the comfort and functionality. And that’s all I’m saying: Vive is giving up kinda fugly looking headsets for literally no good reason.

          • plrr

            Raphael and impurekind. No offense, but I’m a little curious as to whether you guys are around 20, 25 or 30+… An inappropriate desire to categorise people, perhaps…

          • impurekind

            Or just speaking the truth possibly. . . .

            If you have sh*t taste then it has nothing to do with age if I say you have sh*t taste.

            If you are ignorant as to what good taste is, it has nothing to do with age if I say you are ignorant of what good taste is.

            And so on.

            I’m just calling a spade a spade.

            But maybe you’re right, and maybe it is only younger people that do that. I don’t know the science behind that one.

      • impurekind

        See my reply to the guy below. . . .

    • plrr

      I actually thoght the looks improved a lot over previous HTC headsets. Taking the best from PSVR and the Rift in the design, esentially. Admittedly, seeing it head-on, as in the picture above, it didn’t look all that pretty, perhaps.

    • Raphael

      “ignorance talking” – you described yourself. Design aesthetics are subjective. To me my vive is ugly. CV1 is a boring rectangular brick and PSVR looks like something for 5 year olds. Do I call people ignorant for having a different view on something far less important than the spec? I purchased vive before launch even though I find it ugly to look at. Go figure…

      To the casual vr gamer (the worst segment of vr user for a number of reasons) = looks above spec. To a VR enthusiast = specs before looks.

      • impurekind

        No, you just think everything is “subjective”–although technically everything in existence is subjective to each individual. The design above generally looks crap and. The Vive is ugly. The Rift CV1 looks pretty good, and especially the controllers that don’t have stupid and tacky tribal light patterns on them. And PSVR looks great other than the specific glowing blue lights that could have been shaped a bit better into the look of the system, and the obviously outdated controllers look a bit naff. And the way a product looks are ultimately important, whether some people realise it or not.

        • Raphael

          Thanks for the mind-numbingly boring lecture. This new HTC looks pretty good. You are one arrogant aesthetically unpleasing Muppet.

          You represent the shallow casual vr gamer who only buys if it looks cute.

          • impurekind

            Yeah, I’m the shallow casual gamer–the guys who bought a Rift in its first year and is developing a VR game on it as I type.

          • Raphael

            Funny.. Whenever someone is challenged over an obnoxious statement they always use the “I develop for vr” line. It’s supposed to create shock & awe and make everyone think your obnoxious view is exempt from criticism.

            If you’re a developer of any substance your statement is all the worse. Not better.

          • daveinpublic

            Despite seeing multiple long posts about how the Vive is better, the only feature you guys mentioned as being better is tracking. Seems pretty universally accepted that the tracking is equal now. You guys are harkening back to the first year of VR.

            And you know that there are more factors to VR than tracking, right? Because the Rift is better in many categories having to do with comfort, built in audio, control sticks, lenses, and other various things people have mentioned here. Even if tracking was the only feature that mattered, the Rift was upgraded to room scale with pinpoint accuracy after year one, but the thing is, there are many other features that matter.

          • Raphael

            How old are you? Reason I ask is that there seems to be a few posting recently with that same childish “oculus is better in every way” crap. Reading your clearly biased nonobjective statement reminds me of the childish iPhone versus android war.

            It’s clear you’re not offering any reasonable balanced perspective. VIVE and cv1 both have good and bad points and no… Oculus isn’t better in every way. You clearly lack any technical/electronics understanding. There’s a reason forensic crime scene cameras scan an area and build up a picture using laser light rather than passive tracking Oculus employs. Don’t make me list the strengths and weaknesses of VIVE and rift… There are many.

            I am wondering how typical your type of view is with oculus users though… Do the majority see it in that childish way of “rift is better in all/most ways. It’s actually sad to see this mentality crossing over from phone wars to vr.

            Grow the xxxx up.

          • daveinpublic

            Lol, I enjoyed your post. :) You are clearly passionate about Vive and VR. You actually didn’t mention any features that Vive does better once again, but we can add another long post to this thread that doesn’t mention them. And I didn’t say Oculus is better in every way, I said “the Rift is better in many categories having to do with…” So when you say “and no… Oculus isn’t better in every way”, you must not understand what I was saying.

            From my perspective, the Rift is a better product in terms of fit and finish, and the other things listed. I mean, they had more time to create it, Oculus was the first company to kick off the current VR revolution. Having that extra time makes a difference in these early years. Same with the touch controllers, Oculus waited until they were happy with them before releasing them. They released them much later in the game, but now that they’re here, they’re more polished and most people agree that they’re better than the Vive wands in a noticeable way.

          • Raphael

            Yes, I agree, rift is better in fit and finish. Vive I believe didn’t make it much past prototype stage in terms of build/styling. Oculus drivers are more efficient. Oculus tracking has certainly improved, it still can’t match laser precision and range but the range isn’t needed for most people. Not having the trackers tied to PC is a big bonus with Vive and not needing 4 x usb ports. A friend of mine is now on his second USB card in order to meet rift’s usb requirements. Rift’s integrated headphones had a design/manufacturing flaw causing one speaker to stop working over time for a percentage but Vive has also had it’s share of issues for a percentage. Oculus lenses are better for having a wider sweet-spot, slight increase in fuzziness due to the dual element lenses.

            Rift controllers are good. Oculus store is better regulated and not floowed with hundreds of first game creation attempts.

            CV1’s reliance on usb ports for tracking cams is a turn-off for me though. I have considering buying a CV1 at the new lower price but those cams put me off a bit.

          • impurekind

            What you childishly and ignorantly call “crap”, I call actual fact (not your made up in your mind bullsh*t):

            Vive:

            1. Better tracking
            2. An almost unused outside camera feature
            3. Anything else I’ve forgotten?

            Rift:

            1. Superior controllers (in ergonomics and inputs and features)
            2. Better lenses and larger sweet spot according to many reviews
            3. More comfortable headset with superior head strap
            5. Built in headphones
            6. Cheaper (even with the built in headphones and superior strap)
            7. More user friendly Home environment, store experience, and in general menus and stuff like that
            8. Plays Steam games without a hack, unlike Vive that requires a hack to play Rift games
            9. Better exclusives
            10. More and better free games/experiences bundled

            And also this too:

            When it comes to the Touch controllers vs the Vive controllers–they key part of the device that connects your real world inputs and actions to the in-game representation–it isn’t even close:

            1. Far more egronomic
            2. Analog sticks, which are superior to the touch pads for the majority of uses
            3. Two additional face buttons on each controller, which help no end for many games and particularly retro style games and the like (such as playing old console or arcade games on the system virtually)
            4. Finger tracking for proper gestures and the like
            5. Simply look much nice and more finished as a product
            6. Quite a bit cheaper
            7. Come with more and better free games/experiences included

            But so many Vive owners are so blinded by their fanboyism, which I kinda understand because they paid a lot for their headsets, that they can’t see beyond it for the most part.

          • Raphael

            Have you ever asked yourself what your problem is? Why you see Oculus vs Vive as a f&cking war? Something to fight over? I mean seriously… grow the f&ck up!

          • impurekind

            I don’t see it as a war. I see idiots like you lying and saying the Vive is better, based on complete and utter bullsh*t, as disingenuous fanboy garbage. So I want people to know the real truth and actually go out and buy the genuinely superior product and much, much better value for money, rather than listen to some delusional plonker telling them Vive is better, which they might even believe.

            Basically, exactly what good is your garbage doing anyone?

            Because I’m actually wanting to make sure people know the objective truth and go out and get themselves the best VR headset (out of those two) and best value and experience for their hard-earned cash.

            You–I have no clue what you think you’re doing.

          • impurekind

            Exactly.

            With the three sensor setup the Rift is pretty much on par, other than the larger size the Vive covers. And, I’d argue that because you can get a Rift with three sensors for less than a Vive with two that the Rift technically offers a greater chance of less occlusion and therefore loss of tracking than the Vive at this point.

            And I think you’ll appreciate this list because of what you said:

            Vive:

            1. Better tracking
            2. An almost unused outside camera feature
            3. Anything else I’ve forgotten?

            Rift:

            1. Superior controllers (in ergonomics and inputs and features)
            2. Better lenses and larger sweet spot according to many reviews
            3. More comfortable headset with superior head strap
            5. Built in headphones
            6. Cheaper (even with the built in headphones and superior strap)
            7. More user friendly Home environment, store experience, and in general menus and stuff like that
            8. Plays Steam games without a hack, unlike Vive that requires a hack to play Rift games
            9. Better exclusives
            10. More and better free games/experiences bundled

            And also this too:

            When it comes to the Touch controllers vs the Vive controllers–they key part of the device that connects your real world inputs and actions to the in-game representation–it isn’t even close:

            1. Far more egronomic
            2. Analog sticks, which are superior to the touch pads for the majority of uses
            3. Two additional face buttons on each controller, which help no end for many games and particularly retro style games and the like (such as playing old console or arcade games on the system virtually)
            4. Finger tracking for proper gestures and the like
            5. Simply look much nice and more finished as a product
            6. Quite a bit cheaper
            7. Come with more and better free games/experiences included

            But so many Vive owners are so blinded by their fanboyism, which I kinda understand because they paid a lot for their headsets, that they can’t see beyond it for the most part.

          • Alan Dail

            Play VR in a 15×15 or 20×20 play area with games that take advantage of that larger play area, then go back to a smaller play area and play the same games.

            Once you do that you see what a game changer larger play areas is. That’s one reason I’m so interested in the Oculus Quest, large play area, no wires.

          • impurekind

            Funny how your response to that is such.

        • Kevin White

          Original Vive was an example of form playing second fiddle to function, which to some of us is beautiful and never a mistake.

          I honestly don’t care much how a headset looks. I care about looks a bit more when it comes to guitars, cars, or motorcycles, but not headsets. It needs to function well, be durable, be comfortable, and not have any sacrifices (or pretensious elements) in the name af aesthetics. I mostly feel the same way about audiophile speakers.

          • impurekind

            And yet the CV1 functions better in almost every single way and still looks way nicer too, especially the controllers. Only thing original Vive did better was the size of the room scale, which is becoming a mute point as most headsets move towards standalone anyway. And Quest certainly both looks great and does standalone better than any other headset I’m aware of. Point is, Oculus gives you both form and function, and there’s no reason that shouldn’t be the case for pretty much every VR headset other then early developer versions and the like. Vive doesn’t have a good excuse for its consumer headsets looking like not-quite-finished early production models to a degree, or just a bit fugly to be more blunt.

          • Raphael

            Cv1 functions better in almost every single way? How old are you? 12? Let’s see.. VIVE laser tracking is more precise over a greater area and under more adverse conditions. That’s inevitable when you have lasers painting an area. Oculus lenses are better in some areas and worse in others. Difference is small. Oculus drivers are more efficient than steam vr. Oculus reliance on USB/bandwidth is another weak point. Also the USB wires going to the sensors.

            I get the feeling you think you’re some kind of God-like authority whose view is not to be questioned.

          • impurekind

            Vive:

            1. Better tracking
            2. An almost unused outside camera feature
            3. Anything else I’ve forgotten?

            Rift:

            1. Superior controllers (in ergonomics and inputs and features)
            2. Better lenses and larger sweet spot according to many reviews
            3. More comfortable headset with superior head strap
            5. Built in headphones
            6. Cheaper (even with the built in headphones and superior strap)
            7. More user friendly Home environment, store experience, and in general menus and stuff like that
            8. Plays Steam games without a hack, unlike Vive that requires a hack to play Rift games
            9. Better exclusives
            10. More and better free games/experiences bundled

            This isn’t about my subjective “view”; it’s just about objective reality.

          • Raphael

            Who’s really the biased one? You. As I said.. Oculus is better on driver efficiency, touch is good, lenses are better in some applications and have wider sweet spot. Oculus headphones are crappy and had that design/build fault resulting in a number of failed speakers. USB burden and wired sensors not great. Now you on the other hand childishly want to push “oculus wins” like a 5 year old. Both headsets have good and bad. You are boring the feck out of me now so jog-on.

          • impurekind

            The Oculus wins in 9/10 categories, and most of them way more important that tracking space size. You’d literally have to be a complete f’n moron to continue arguing the Vive is better here after the facts have been laid out before you. Are you a moron?

          • Alan Dail

            wins 9 out of your own arbitrary categories, most of which are just variations of “cheaper”. My two most important features are

            1 – Substantially larger play area
            2 – spot on 360 tracking

            My experience is Vive crushes Rift on both. That’s why it’s my preferred VR system.

          • impurekind

            So, in your world 8/10–and let’s give you that extra one for the hell of it–is better than 2/10?

            What planet do you live on?

            And, not only that, but many of those 8/10 are more important than “perfect” tracking, such as being quite a bit cheaper, and getting way more and better free games bundled, and having superior controllers with far more versatility (by virtue of the sticks, extra face button and finger tracking), and so on.

          • Alan Dail

            don’t agree with your 8, most of them are variations of “it’s cheaper”. I don’t really care that it’s cheaper. I want the system where I’m not distracted from what I want to do in the game because of limitations in the system.

          • impurekind

            No they’re not lol.

          • Alan Dail

            Many instead of most.

            3. More comfortable headset with superior head strap.
            5. Built in headphones
            6. Cheaper (even with the built in headphones and superior strap)
            10. More and better free games/experiences bundled

            These 4 are all saying “it’s cheaper” in different ways. Vive audio strap (and vive pro) are better at 3 and 5. 6 specifically says it’s cheaper. And 10 is “you get more games for free”, which also just says “it’s cheaper”.

            Your other 5 (the list skips #4), these are personal opinions

            1. Superior controllers (in ergonomics and inputs and features)
            7. More user friendly Home environment, store experience, and in general menus and stuff like that.

            1. There are things about each controller that I like better vs teh other.
            7. Neither one get it quite right, Oculus Go has the best home. Home is irrelevant once you get in the game.

            These two are both because they have a closed system instead of an open one. I don’t consider that an overall plus.
            8. Plays Steam games without a hack, unlike Vive that requires a hack to play Rift games
            9. Better exclusives

            That leaves this one. I don’t notice this at all, at least not once I’ve put the headset on and am in the games. I am using Vive Pro, not Vive, though, maybe that makes a difference.

            2. Better lenses and larger sweet spot according to many reviews

          • impurekind

            Do you know what you are actually doing but don’t realise you’re doing–and it’s vulgar–you’re actually just comparing [boasting] about how much money you have.

            You’re not comparing like for like; you’re comparing what you can get if you spend more.

            I’m comparing what people get when they go out and buy their Vive vs their Rift, as it comes in the box. But you’re saying “Well, I have enough cash to add this and this and this, so “Vive” is better than Rift”. Even though, technically speaking, some dude could actually buy extra stuff for “Rift” and make it superior to “Vive”, especially if they wanted to get real creative in how they define that and how far they’re will to take that.

            So, compare your setup to something like The Void–you lose. And you will always lose than one, for the rest of your life–I have no doubt whatsoever.

          • Alan Dail

            You keep making the case in many ways that Rift is better because it’s cheaper. The most expensive part of any PC based VR system is the PC. There are gaming graphics cards that cost more than either. I keep pointing out ways I find Vive to be better, you keep disagreeing with all of them.

            Cheaper is one advantage, it’s not 4 or 5 advantages simultaneously. It’s not just me, plenty of people prefer the Vive, that’s why it has roughly equal market share to the cheaper Rift. If it was more expensive and worse, it would fail as a product.

            I’m giving you, as a game developer, my experience using both side by side. Instead of listening to and learning from what I’m telling you, you resort to name calling.

          • impurekind

            No, you keep making the case that it being cheaper is irrelevant, and you keep comparing a souped-up Vive experience to a standard Rift one, so you’re just arguing about how much wealth someone has (boasting about how much wealth you have). I’m making the case the Rift is better for basically all round (in most and more areas)–the Rift you actually get in the box vs the Vive you actually get in the box–and it is.

            Again:

            You’re not comparing like for like; you’re comparing what you can get if you spend more.

            I’m comparing what people get when they go out and buy their Vive vs their Rift, as it comes in the box. But you’re saying “Well, I have enough cash to add this and this and this, so “Vive” is better than Rift’. Even though, technically speaking, some rich twit could actually go out and buy extra stuff for Rift too if they really wanted (like a backpack computer to make it basically untethered for example, or a Leap Motion hand tracker, or a Kat Walk mini for tracking your walking, etc) and make their “Rift” superior to “Vive” in every single aspect, especially if they wanted to get real creative in how they define that and how far they’re willing to take that.

            So, compare your setup to something like The Void–you lose. And you will always lose than one, for the rest of your life–I have no doubt whatsoever.

          • Alan Dail

            How would Kat Walk Mini make Rift better than Vive, it’s available for both. Same thing with backpack PC.

            And I keep saying “cheaper is one befit”, you keep wanting to make it 4.

            You’re perfectly willing to add a $99 tracking station to the Rift to end up with something not quite as good as what you get “out of the box” with a Vive, but balk at adding a $99 headstrap/headphones where you end up with something better than what comes with the Rift.

            Rift + 3rd sensor vs Vive + headstrap is the same price differential as either without the extra accessory. How can you throw out “you can add a 3rd” sensor then get bent out of shape when someone else says “you can add the audio headstrap”.

            Large scale 360 tracking is a killer feature for VR. There is a massive difference between 10×10 and 15×15. 15×15 is 225% more space, it’s almost the size of a boxing ring, so you can use the entire ring in Thrill of the Fight.

          • impurekind

            It makes the setup of the person that has it better than yours, so their “Rift” is better than your “Vive”.

            You’re comparing what you get with wealth vs what you get with the system in the box.

            I’m not perfectly willing to add the extra tracking. I mention it simply because you can get it and STILL not even have spent as much as someone buying a base Vive.

          • Alan Dail

            You don’t get 360 tracking out of the box with Rift. That’s far more important than built in headphones.

          • impurekind

            It’s not more important than built in headphones, truly superior controllers, better lenses, far more and superior bundled games/experiences, a generally much better user interface (as in not convoluted meh for geeks), and a more comfortable head strap combined, all in the box day one, and STILL for less than a Vive.

          • Alan Dail

            well we fundamentally disagree with what’s important about VR then, I put room scale 360 tracking right at the top of the list. It’s absolutely vital to so many games I play.

          • impurekind

            No, you’re wrong, and this is precisely why the Rift has sold more and continues to do so (along with the more attractive price too).

            I have no doubt it’s awesome, but not everyone even has the space for it as it exits on the Vive, so, literally, it isn’t even a viable option for most people buying VR, which means it absolutely is not more important (when comparing those two systems).

            When you get that Quest, then you can argue that point, because then it will be, in a way that actually means something meaningful to the vast majority of people playing in their VR headsets.

            But at that point your argument might well be “Quest is better than Vive/Rift”–for the most part (the stuff that actually matters to the most people)–and I’ll agree!

          • Alan Dail

            Oculus Go outsells either, that doesn’t make it better. And all of the stats I’ve seen show that Vive and Rift have roughly equal market share.

            And it’s nonsense that a point about 360 tracking being important isn’t valid now, but will be valid when Quest ships.

          • impurekind

            No, but that IS selling almost entirely based on cost and convenience. Rift is selling because what it does matters more to more people, and it does most of it better than Vive.

          • Alan Dail

            Fanboy goggles? I’m a fan of VR, whichever one works best is the one I want to use. I really don’t care a thing about HTC, as soon as Oculus makes, or anyone else even, makes one that works better, I’ll use that.

            You’ve never even used real room scale 360 VR and you don’t think it’s a feature worthwhile? And just spend all day arguing with people who have used room scale VR and think it’s very important?

            There are games where it’s absolutely critical to turn around and shoot at things the opposite direction, then turn back to the original direction to shoot again. There are games where you want to move around in a large area because that’s the natural way to play the game.

            For example, Boxing in a full ring is a better experience than boxing in a limited space. You want to back up, move forward, etc, if the opponent moves, you want to keep moving.

            I just spent 2 hours playing In Death – it’s my favorite game. I bought the 3rd sensor for the Rift just it could be used to play games like this. I read how limited the play area was, it wasn’t until I went to set it up that I realized just how small the area really is.

            My 3rd sensor had to be in the middle of the room in the way of where people walked. The play area in the game was too small for that game. The 3rd sensor sits in a box because the constraints on where to place it make it unusable. I play games like that only on the Vive because game play is better.

            Other games it doesn’t matter. Both work well. I said from the beginning that the Rift is really good at many games, I said I set it up in a place it made more sense than the Vive. I also said the Vive is better at some games because of the larger play area/360 tracking.

            I never said the Rift is bad, I said the Vive gives a more comprehensive VR experience. The larger play area, 360 tracking, the vive trackers (not the controllers, the trackers), etc.

            I also have said several times that I’m really looking forward to the Quest. Large play areas that can easily be set up in any room and taken to friends or when traveling.

            BoxVR and BeatSaber are my exercise routine. I want to be able to take those with me when I travel. I’ve done it, but it’s a major hassle to do that with either Vive or Rift.

            I don’t care if Quest is made by Oculus, HTC, Microsoft, or anyone else, I just care that it works well.

          • impurekind

            The fact I haven’t used it and still see how amazing VR is without it, and the fact you have used it and seemly can’t see beyond it, tells me you’re out of touch with what the vast majority of people who use it will really care about. You’re like someone who’s tried a Pimax and now says it’s impossible to back to any smaller field of view–but then assigns to everyone, as though you’re subjective experiences defines reality. Most people can and will still have an amazing time in VR without full room scale–I absolutely have–and it’s not essential. Going forward it’s going to be ace to get it, clearly, but that’s not reallity right now, and right now we’re comparing these two headsets, and you’re saying Vive is better based on one feature that most users don’t particularly need to still truly love VR, and I’m saying Rift is better for all the things that are better and most people will fully appreciate.

          • Alan Dail

            I’ve said Rift is fine for many games. Vive is better at some games because of room scale. You have no problem agreeing that Rift is better than Oculus Go. Oculus go is great at some things, and for a couple, gets it better than either Rift or Vive. But full 6DOF is essential for so many other things, including Beat Saber.

            I could do the same thing you did, make a list of things better about Rift, and a list of things better about Oculus Go. I could even end up with a longer list of things better about Oculus Go. But neither of us would argue that Oculus Go is better VR than either Rift or Vive because 6DOF is so important.

            Just like 6DOF is essential for some games, room scale 360 tracking is essential for others.

            I ever said that you can’t have a great time with a Rift. In fact, I said the opposite, that I have a great time with Rift, but there are things Vive does better that are essential to a class of games.

            Oculus Go = 199
            Rift with 3rd sensor and VR PC = 1299 + 349 + 99 = $1747
            Vive with deluxe audio strap and VR PC = 1299+499+99 = $1897

            Some people will get a cheaper gaming PC, others will spend more. $1299 is a reasonable number.

            A Rift system is 8.7 times as expensive as Go. With current state of VR, it’s worth it to get 6DOF. Nevermind the long list of things Go is better at. Cheaper, better resolution, more portable, better at watching media, etc, etc. You can’t play games like Beat Saber with it. Not the game specifically, but rather any game that works like that. So Rift is “better” VR.

            A Vive system is 8% more expensive than a Rift system. 8% more to get spot on large room scale 360 tracking that is pretty essential to one class of games and that makes another class of games more enjoyable.

            Quest can change all of this if they get the hand tracking right. Rift and Vive will still be better overall, but the cost difference will go from marginal to substantial. It should have all of the advantages of the Go + 6DOF. It won’t have high end PC gaming level graphics. Quest vs Rift or Vive is when the price difference will really matter.

          • impurekind

            Figured I’d post this nice little video that I just watched today here for your viewing pleasure:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnU7sTGjZBA

            I think you’ll find the outcome interesting.

          • Alan Dail

            Oculus doesn’t let Vive users access Rift games, how do you penalize Vive for that? Vive opened Viveport the other way around.

            Vive also supports larger play areas (15′ 15′ for Vive, 20’x20′ for View Pro).
            Also supports vive trackers

            Better tracking + larger play areas + vive trackers. The combination opens up a whole range of experiences that aren’t possible on Rift.

            Btw: the head strap on the Deluxe audio strap and the Vive Pro is better than the head strap on the Rift.

            The rift is cheaper, Vive is better. Some will spend the extra money, others won’t. I have and use both, if I only could have 1, it’d be the Vive every time.

          • impurekind

            It does let me play Steam games simply by clicking one option, without any hack like Revive, and Vive games are just Steam games. So it’s objectively better that regard.

          • Alan Dail

            Vive absolutely is better, Rift is cheaper. Nearly every reason you listed had to do with them being cheaper. Why are you arguing with someone who has both systems and uses them daily?

            And the 2 basestation vive tracks better than a 3 basestation rift because they are designed quite differently.

            And you’re giving Rift extra credit for having a closed system instead of downgrading them vs the open system. Of course they can use the open system. The integration has been pretty glitch for me the last few days, not sure if it’s from the recent update or something else.

          • impurekind

            Again, as the other guy said, you’ve based that on basically having a bigger tracking volume. That’s the one thing you keep allowing yourself to state online that everyone can see and make potential purchasing decisions on. I’ve based my counter on literally ten areas the Rift is superior, many of which are actually more important that just how big yours is. You have not backed up your statement with anything other than drivel. I’ve now posted the actual facts and objective truth multiple times.

            And I’m not giving them extra credit for it. I’m just stating the cold, hard fact of it to (as I am with pretty much everything else). It’s irrelevant why it is the way it is if it is in fact better–and it is.

          • Alan Dail

            I have both. I use the Vive 90% of the time because it functions better. The 2 sensor Rift doesn’t do 360 tracking, the 3 sensor rift has a limited play area. Limited so much that my rear tracker had to in the middle of the room instead of against the wall. I had to set it on a box and tell people, please don’t bump that box. My side by side VR setup so we can do two player VR would have worked much, much better if both devices were Vive.

            The best thing about VR is your body is the controller. Large play areas allow your legs to be part of that controller. I use VR for exercise, using my legs too is important, and works great in things like boxing. The larger the play area, the better the experience.

            Far from being better in nearly every single way, really the only ways I find the Rift to be better are
            1- the ability of the controller to track if your fingers are touching the trigger and other buttons so you can do things like point is better.
            2 – Apps seem to load a bit faster
            3 – Their control panel (or whatever it’s called) where you select your app to run and set the settings is better. I don’t find the need for a home space, I don’t know why Rift takes you to a different room to browse the store, I don’t do anything in either the SteamVR home or the Rift home besides pull up the screen to change settings or select the next app to run. Oculus Go gets this better than either Rift, SteamVR or especially WMR, which is the worst of them all. VivePort does have the cool feature where some games have full 360 previews. That’s so obviously a good way to preview VR games before buying it’s surprising nobody else does it.

          • impurekind

            I’m not sure you quite understand this but you’re speaking from the point of a total geek nerd (sorry but it’s true). You have to step out of hardcore VR enthusiast mode for just one second: For most intents and purposes the Rift is the superior product, from the hardware (both headset and controllers) to the firmware (even the now more convoluted Oculus Home is still far more elegant and user friendly than Steam), and the one most people will absolutely see as such in actual use. Vive’s room scale is surely great, but the vast majority of games still play absolutely brilliantly on Rift without it–trying to actually claim otherwise is the height of VR elitist nerd/geek absurdity–and certainly if you’re one of the people who has went to the extra expense and hassle of setting up three sensors.

          • Alan Dail

            I set up the 3 sensors, played In Death (my favorite game right now) and kept losing tracking. That absolutely never happens with Vive, that’s not a geek issue (although I am a geek), that’s a playability issue.

            There are games like Beat Saber that either one plays equally well, but I’ve never once played on the Vive and wished i was using the Rift instead, the reverse has happened multiple times because of playability issues.

            And I see being able to point with your finger instead of the controller as a, hey that’s neat as a geek issue, not at all a playability issue.

          • impurekind

            Given that I use two sensors and very rarely suffer tracking loss–and that’s only because my sensors are precariously balanced on top of my TV at waist height at that–could it be possible at all the issue is you and you’re setup. Because I know I certainly don’t have a magical one-off version of the Rift that works better than all others. Just a thought, because if my example is a fact, and it is, then you’re example can’t be the truth other than in random cases. Again, because by the very laws of the Universe, it’s more likely something is wrong on your end that my setup is performing beyond the actual capabilities of the system.

          • Alan Dail

            it’s possible and I will try it again at some point. I did my test and went back to the Vive that was set up beside it. I’ve moved things around, Vive is in a dedicated area, Rift is in living room (2 sensor setup). I use Vive for games that need 360 tracking and significant movement and Rift for games that don’t. The living room setup is ideal for games where I take turns with family and we can watch each other play.

            The other issue I had with Rift is the play area was too small, I wanted to put the 3rd sensor against the other wall, I had to set it 4 feet in from that wall. I followed the rift instructions to set everything up. In 11 months, I’ve never had a single problem with vive tracking and can use all of my available area.

            As I’ve said before, I have high hopes for Quest and Cosmos to be “good enough” and much better than the significant issues i have with existing Inside Out systems because of the extra cameras. Maintaining hand tracking is critical for VR.

          • impurekind

            Yes, I expect both Quest and Cosmos to be a nice step forward in that regard, at for tracking that doesn’t generally require putting your hands over you shoulders and behind your back, which, while it does happen in some games, is very rare.

          • Raphael

            “trying to actually claim otherwise is the height of VR elitist nerd/geek absurdity–and certainly if you’re one of the people who has went to the extra expense and hassle of setting up three sensors.” << You like to label people dunt you flappy. Anyone who has a different opinion in fact. Alan Dail gave an accurate factual account of Oculus. Having used CV1 and owning Vive and having Oculus owning friends – Alan Dail is correct. You're the one with issues. First you label anyone who disagrees with your view of cosmos being ugly (anyone who disagrees you call "ignorant on design"). Now you're calling Alan an elitist nerd because he doesn't have sex with your godlike ultra-biased statements. Your pro statements about CV1 were not balanced and purely emotion-driven. You're a child.

          • impurekind

            Tell you what, I’ll reply to you with the same comment I posted to Dail:

            “Given that I use two sensors and very rarely suffer tracking loss–and that’s only because my sensors are precariously balanced on top of my TV at waist height at that–could it be possible at all the issue is you and you’re setup. Because I know I certainly don’t have a magical one-off version of the Rift that works better than all others. Just a thought, because if my example is a fact, and it is, then you’re example can’t be the truth other than in random cases. Again, because by the very laws of the Universe, it’s more likely something is wrong on your end that my setup is performing beyond the actual capabilities of the system.”

            But trust me, you are a nerd who can’t see beyond your nerdy nose. And you do have crap taste.

          • Kevin White

            I didn’t find CV1 to function better than Vive. If we’re really talking looks, frankly I thought the Vive was more interesting visually and tactilely than the Rift from the beginning.

          • impurekind

            You thinking and it being measurably true are to different things. I’ve posted actual factual examples of why the Rift is better above.

          • Alan Dail

            2. Having both, I prefer the touchpad.
            3. my body is the controller, I prefer the games be designed so you don’t have to think about which button to push.
            4. kinda cook, not having that hasn’t been an issues. And sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re supposed to push something with your finger vs push a button
            5. personal opinion

          • impurekind

            “Having both, I prefer the touchpad.”

            Yeah, now I know you’re living in fantasy land.

            I’m making a game in VR and I can tell you that having analog sticks plus those extra face buttons is a far superior design decision than that track pad.

            I literally can’t put the controls I have on the Rift version of my game on Vive without annoying compromise for no good reason.

            And good luck playing saying driving games or platformers and the like with those Vive controllers. But, hey, I guess people can just go out and spend ANOTHER $50 or so on a extra standard Xbox One controller too (which, by the way, I even go FREE when I got my Rift).

            5. Personal opinion–objectively true.

          • Alan Dail

            I don’t play driving games, if I did, I’d want a steering wheel and pedals, not a thumbstick. I want VR games that work like things do in real life. I’ve spend most of my time playing In Death, Beat Saber, BoxVR (lost a ton of weight with this one), Thrill of the Fight, Space Pirate Trainer, Smashbox Arena, etc.

            And, again, there rant about having to buy an Xbox controller is just another price issue. Again, I don’t care about the price. The biggest cost of my VR systems is the PC, and I only use each one for VR.

          • impurekind

            Why are you so self absorbed?

            “You probably think this song is about you, don’t you.”

            This is not about you; this is about what is the better headset and controllers and VR experience–comparing what you get in the box with a Vive vs what you get in the box with a Rift, which is what the vast, vast majority of people are going to buy–for anyone that might want to get into VR.

            It seems you literally can’t see how your subjective take on things is not the objective truth of things.

            PS. Beat Saber is frikin’ awesome. And I absolutely love Superhot VR too.

          • Alan Dail

            If one of us is self absorbed, it’s not me. I use both, have things I like about both, you refuse to believe that people could prefer Vive. You apparently refuse to believe that people could prefer VR work like real life, not like an Xbox.

          • Raphael

            It really comes down to personal choice. I originally pre-ordered CV1 but changed to Vive because it looked like it was gonna ship sooner (it did ship on time!). Also CV1 launched without controllers so that was another reason to go Vive. I do think the octopus is great value for money though especially with the price drop. As an UNBIASED vive user I do recommend the CV1 to people. It’s quite disturbing to see the attitude some have though because rather than making use of VR it looks like it’s just something to fight over.

            Having previously owned a DK2 and having used a friend’s CV1 I have a pretty good understanding of both HMD. I like both. Have considered buying a CV1 but I guess it would be better to wait for higher spec VR.

      • Lucidfeuer

        “To me my vive is ugly. CV1 is a boring rectangular brick and PSVR looks like something for 5 year olds”. So you do care about aesthetics which…no, is ABSOLUTELY not subjective, only taste is.

        And that’s the point, I actually understand and agree with your statements, yet I’m very sensitive to design: there’s a universal appreciation of aesthetic which has most people agreeing, and if most people agree that the Vive is ugly as F, then it’s a problem for the majority of people who care about design even if you don’t.

        And yet I’m a VR “enthusiast” (albeit close to creative and brand segment than corporate or tool ones), so design has nothing to do with being casual or not. Some people just don’t have an aesthetically sensitive brain, some do, apparently and fortunately, the majority.

        • Raphael

          Except that as far as I know… No poll has been taken where a majority has decided this design is ugly. So to come along and call people ignorant about design aesthetic if they happen to like the look is the definition of ignorance.

          I think all current vr hmd are ugly but I would never tell anyone they’re ignorant about design if they disagree with me.

          Let’s apply some logic.. HTC hired a design team who most likely have extensive design experience. Perhaps more design experience than some guy on a forum declaring anyone ignorant if the design appeals to them. HTC liked the design. Unless you show me a poll where the majority hate it then this whole argument is irrelevant.

          It’s a design like many others that appeals to some and not to others. That is life… That is reality. Matey obviously hasn’t grasped those facts when he claims godlike ability to determine bad aesthetic design.

          • Lucidfeuer

            Well true, there’s no poll I’m aware of, but all of people I’ve mentioned design to agree…this seems like enough of a trend to conclude on it.

            Also, design being a professional domain with expertise and being a crucial part of product conception, you can absolutely tell people they’re ignorant about design, but not because they “disagree” with you: again it’s about differentiating taste from objective judgement.

            And you’re right about your logic, except you miss the fact that people working at HTC doesn’t make automatically them good (or free to be) at the task they’re assigned, otherwise HTC would be selling smartphones and Apple would be bankrupt…

            BTW I think both the Focus and Cosmos are okay, as in not ugly. Which is a lot compared to those horrible Vive and especially the Pro.

          • Raphael

            Yes, but your poll of asking people within your circle also doesn’t make the product ugly. It just means your circle of friends agree with you. It’s like X-Factor where friends and family tell you you’re a great singer and then the judges laugh at you.

            The whole debate about this product is ridiculous and it was entirely because one person decided anyone who didn’t agree with him is “ignorant about design”.

            I like the glowing controller rings. Reminds me of Myst symbols.

            And while he was right that aesthetic design is important… he fails to grasp that consumer VR doesn’t give the luxury of rejecting a headset on the grounds of styling. That day will come but perhaps not for another 5 years. As you have seen from the responses here… people are saying they buy VR for the spec and not how it looks. They aren’t saying that just for the sake of disagreeing… they’re saying it because there’s almost no choice in VR hardware and so it’s totally dependent on spec. There maybe a few “odd” people who feel they have the luxury of rejecting solely on aesthetic appeal.

            I think Vive and Pimax are among the ugliest. Pimax is a rather hideous angled wedge. Vive looks like a tumor but let’s be clear this is my personal opinion and I don’t think anyone who finds Vive and Pie pretty are “ignorant about design” :)

          • Lucidfeuer

            No I agree, I’m saying given the 100% trend in opinions including yours, I wouldn’t be surprise that a large census would also give the Vive and especially Pro as the ugliest.

            But I still think that in terms of design there’s a minimum of decent requirement, if not just not to be appalled by it. The Cosmos is okay, as in it passes the decency test for me, but the Vive Pro makes me want to vomit and I’m pretty sure that’s the general reaction I heard about it’s design, making it a shortcoming from HTC.

            Well obviously they’ve learned their lessons on that front.

          • Raphael

            Yup, agree. Cosmos at least looks better than Vive. The Vive wands are pretty ugly as well so the cosmos ones look nicer in that area also. I am wondering if it’s possible to make any headset shell something that turns heads in a positive way given the current limitations on electronics/optics size. I think it would be possible but it’s just not happening with these companies. Pimax in my view is an ugly angled wedge. What would happen if a high profile car design company set to work on it? Remember the BMW PC case? It was certainly different but I guess that design wouldn’t appeal to everyone.

          • Lucidfeuer

            Well there’s been some concept around, but I know refining design comes after figuring out the basic ergonomics, which most headset haven’t yet. At least HTC understood that Sony’s headband design was the way to go for straps, Oculus still didn’t.

  • plrr

    So far, the only thing I’m sceptical to is the name. Cosmos… Vive Pro Eye might be a worse name still.

    • gothicvillas

      Chinese marketing.. facepalm

  • HomeAudio

    Vive Reality? WTF!?? Next platform?

    – FB Oculus Home
    – Samsung Oculus Home
    – Vive SteamVr
    – HTC Viveport
    – MS Mixedreality
    – OpenVR
    – OSVR
    – Google Daydream
    – Google Cardboard
    – PS VR

    …seriously?!!!

  • Tommy

    The infighting for VR is stupid. Can’t we just buy the headset you like and talk about the cool games and apps we have for it?
    Why does everyone have to revert to my package is bigger than yours?

    • Darban

      Because they all have pros and cons. Haven’t you ever read a history book?

      • Tommy

        Well, that almost made sense…

    • Mradr

      I mean this has been a historic thing to do. I mean look at arcade wars vs the consoles, PC vs everything else, console wars, handhelds vs consoles/PC, etc

      They all have pros and cons to their graphic power and their usability in most cases. Then we have to take this to the next step and look over what games each headset is going to get in the future. What games will age well on their headset and how well the game plays with on that headset. Pimax headsets require a bit more PC horse power vs Vive and Oculus. Oculus has different APIs that also make it both easier to program for while also making it harder to following their pathing. Oculus for example also has functions that other headsets don’t have from their API/software that allows them to get away with sense that the client PC is having a hard time in to keep up allowing them to drop down the FPS counter to cope with it.

      So it’s not as simple as all headsets are all the same and we’re only talking about games as the only differences right now. Soon or later though – it’ll make more sense to talk about them as all the same soon. Until then – we do have big differences between each headset that does put a line between them all.

      • Right –because at the moment, we’re still in the phase of ‘standards development’. Once we’re a few years down the road, we’ll see what API standards shake out of all of this… hopefully…. at least that’s what normally happens when a new hardware type enters the market that has several vendors competing for API standards –such as the v.90 modem standard that emerged in the late 1990s.

  • Papias

    I wonder what the weight is. Too many headsets are uncomfortable when worn over a long period of time. Also, I find that eyestrain is an issue for the same reason. I hope new headset designs are addressing this.

  • NooYawker

    My first smartphone was an HTC. back then they ruled the market. They made android popular and had many original designs. Then they kept pumping out phone after phone, confusing and muddling the market. It seems like they’re going going down the same road except they’re trying to abandon Steam for their own platform which is a huge mistake.