Of late, one of the questions we get asked most frequently is which VR headset you should buy. With pricing for the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive now known quantities, early VR adopters want to decide which headset to pre-order to get in the queue for release and shipment. That's not an easy question to answer, because we simply haven't had enough time to use and test both headsets to adequately compare them, nor do we know the entirety of their accompanying launch software.

The most appropriate and practical response is to be patient and wait until the headsets are released, and after you have a chance to try them. For the same reasons, the question of which to get only applies to early adopters--not just those who have money in hand and are ready to punch in credit card numbers for pre-orders, but anyone who's going to buy a first-generation desktop VR device this year. The Oculus Rift and HTC Vive are first-gen devices, akin to the 2007 iPhone. I fully believe they're going to be a massive and mainstream computing platform, but it's going to take a while. People who want to adopt VR today should think back to whether they would've bought the first iPhone, knowing how fast the platform iterated and improved in the years after.

But I get the conundrum. The decision as to which first-gen VR headset to early adopt isn't so cut and dry as the decision between first-gen iOS and Android phones. While there are fundamental technical differences between the Rift and Vive, there's more parity in the hardware and software experiences than previous platform wars. Let's run through some of those similarities, the key tech differences, and the distinguishing features I think will matter most.

What you see through the lenses of the Rift and Vive are essentially the same. They're both using similar (if not the same) 90Hz AMOLED panels for each eye, rendering content at the same display resolution. The lenses are slightly different--Vive has more vertical field-of-view, but the Rift's lenses don't have obvious fresnel lines for a larger sweet spot in the center. The same display technologies and rendering targets mean that their system requirements are also almost exactly the same--GTX 970 or equivalent for graphics, Core i5 4590 or equivalent for processing. Games and experiences will look the same on both headsets.

There are some functional differences between the headsets, though. While both headsets will have built-in microphones, the Rift will have built-in headphones, while Vive has a headphone jack for you to plug in your own cans. Only the Vive has a world-facing camera on the front, though, which is used by default for SteamVR's Chaperone system to help you visualize real-world boundaries while in VR. The camera gives Vive additional potential for developers to do interesting things with pass-through video, though for now it's being billed as a feature to enhance comfort and piece of mind while in VR. It's another feature that will require more testing and use before we can judge how big a difference it makes in everyday and long-term use.

A more fundamental difference, though, lies in the way the headsets--and by extension, your head--is positionally tracked. Oculus uses an IR-based optical tracking system they call Constellation. A camera or multiple cameras track arrangements of IR lights embedded in the Rift to calculate your position and movement. It's not a computationally heavy task, from what I understand and hear from developers. Its limitation seems to be the field of view for the camera. You'll need to add multiple cameras to track a larger space as well as compensate for occlusion (when the IR lights are physically obstructed from the cameras' view). The distance and FOV limits of Oculus' tracking cameras are still unknown, and we won't be sure until we have the production units in hand.

Positional tracking on the HTC Vive and SteamVR is handled differently--almost inverted from the Constellation system. SteamVR uses what it calls the Lighthouse tracking system: laser beacons are placed at the corners of rooms, and light from those transmitters are tracked by the headsets themselves, which have an array of sensors embedded. This is also not computationally intensive, but may have the advantage of being able to track multiple headsets and controllers with just a few beacons. We don't know how many headsets and controllers one or two Constellation cameras can keep track of at the same time, but Vive developers have been able to track multiple users with controllers using just two laser-emitting beacons mounted at the corners of the rooms. Again, this potential scaling difference could matter if you're planning on building a dedicated holodeck room in your house for multiplayer VR, but for the majority of desktop VR users, the tracking systems should have similar performance.

What I think will distinguish the two platforms more are the following: controllers, comfort, and content.

Tracked controllers of some kind will be essential for virtual reality in the long run. Oculus Touch isn't shipping until later this year, and Vive will have tracked controllers at launch. The difference in release timing won't make a difference in the long-run, nor should it impact your decision of which headset to buy unless you absolutely can't wait to use them. Vive adopters will get to experience tracked controllers first, yes, but I don't think that will give SteamVR a early mover advantage. There will content on both platforms that make use of gamepads, joysticks, or won't require controllers this year, and I'm pretty sure Oculus is readying a lot of as yet accounted content for Touch's release.

The bigger difference in the controllers are the ergonomics of how you hold them. Vive's controller isn't as clunky as a PVC pipe, and I wouldn't call it a wand. You grip it as you would a TV remote or angled pistol grip on a rifle. That makes it comfortable to use for VR shooters or experiences where you're picking up fire torches--objects you would normally grip between your finger and inner palm. Two grip buttons sit on the left and right sides of the controller. The Oculus Touch controller, however, sits in your hand differently, and has a different gripping action. You hold Touch the way you would Nintendo Wii's Nunchuck accessory--it nests inside your hand like the left or right sides of an Xbox gamepad. In other words, unlike Vive's controllers, they're chiral-- there's a controller for the right hand and one for the left. Chirality in itself doesn't make Touch more ergonomic, though. Oculus has designed it so your hands are in more of a neutral resting post while holding them, which may be more conducive to long-term use.

Additionally, the grip button on Touch isn't at on the sides of the controller, but on the front, under your middle finger. The gripping action is done by squeezing your middle finger toward your palm. In both Vive and Touch demos, gripping felt intuitive, but not completely natural. Think about how you pick up a book, or a pencil off your desk. You likely grab it between your fingers and thumbs; you carry it by cupping it in your palm. Try grabbing the spine of a book with just your palm or by squeezing it between the lower parts of your fingers. It's not difficult, but still a little weird. The visuals shown in-game will help compensate for any awkwardness, but we'll have to see over time if finger and hand actions will feel right in VR with these controllers.

Speaking of ergonomics, I have huge questions about how comfortable these headsets are going to be to wear for long periods of time. Rift's weight, weight distribution, and rigid head band has felt both comfortable to wear and easy to put on and take off in demo sessions, and Vive made big ergonomic changes with the Pre and consumer version to make it more comfortable. The headsets have to be comfortable to wear, but also easy to put on and take off as you're switching between VR and desktop or passing them around different users. In this first generation of desktop VR, I think we'll be wearing these a bunch on our foreheads in between VR sessions, while we queue up software and use the 2D desktop to complement VR. If the headset is cumbersome pop on and off, you're going to use it less. My guess at this point is that Rift's design does a better job of being both comfortable and versatile. (And with regards to glasses, I've had to take off my glasses to use both.)

Finally, there's content, and what Oculus and Valve are going to have available to play and experience at launch and this first year. In terms of exclusives, you can think of SteamVR has having a timed exclusive for tracked controller games and roomscale experiences until Touch comes out. Many of the games I saw at the SteamVR Developer Showcase have already announced Rift versions, or have Rift kits for development. On the Rift side, Oculus Studio has funded several games that will be exclusives to Rift, at least initially. Many of these are gamepad VR games, and some will be for Touch and announced later in the year. We're hoping to see some more at an upcoming Oculus demo day ahead of this year's GDC. Of those Oculus Studio exclusives I've seen so far, none feel like killer apps yet that would compel me to pick Rift over Vive. Tracked controller and roomscale games feel like the killer app experiences for VR, so once again, it's a matter of how much getting earlier access to those means to you. Keep in mind that the VR market is still going to be small enough this year that developers will want to get their their products on as many hardware platforms as possible. Neither headset is going to get dusty in a drawer while you wait for things to do with it.

Of course, with Rift and Vive, we're talking about the high-end PC virtual reality experience. The dark horse in this year's VR is Sony and PlayStation VR, for which price and availability hasn't been announced. PlayStation VR may end up being the best bet for more people. All-in I'm expecting it to cost less than Rift and Vive (with a PC to run them), and Sony knows both how to make games and get games developed and released for PlayStation 4. The living room setting for PSVR also gives it a native advantage over headsets tethered to your desktop PC in the office, and PSVR's developers can design with spectating and asymmetrical game content in mind. The Wii Bowling party appeal shouldn't be underestimated with VR--it'll not only help the market grow but make those experience that much more fun. The larger potential userbase for PSVR out of the gate also gives it a potential leg up for any social apps and experiences that may come out for PSN. PlayStation has its own press conference and demo day ahead of GDC, so hopefully we'll know more then.

Early adoption is so tempting, but our advice has always been to pay for what you're going to be using now, and not for unknown and promised potential. In this first year or two of high-end consumer VR, I think you'll be using it at most the way you use a game console--something you turn on for specific entertainment purposes once a day or a few times a week. You're probably going to use it less than you would a desktop or laptop, and definitely less than you would a smartphone. Virtual reality is an incredible and wholly new digital experience, but $600-$800 is a lot to commit to a platform in its infancy, especially if you're pre-ordering without any actual hands-on time with it. My advice is to be patient and wait. Wait until Sony announces PlayStation VR's pricing. Wait until more content and social platforms for VR are announced. And wait until you've had the chance to try one of these headsets on for yourself. There's no rush.